WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/SPS/R/64 
17 January 2012  
 
(12-0273) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 19-20 OCTOBER 2011 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Table of contents 
 
Page 
 
I.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ............................................................................................. 3  
II.  INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES ................................................................ 3  
(a)  Information from Members ...................................................................................................... ... 3 
(b)  Information from Observer Organizations .................................................................................. 4  
III. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL 
OF ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ........................................ 5  
IV.  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.11) ............................................. 7  
(a)  New Issues .................................................................................................................... .............. 7  
(b)  Issues Previous ly Raised ...................................................................................................... ..... 10 
(c)  Consideration of Specific Notifications Received .................................................................... 20  
(d)  Information on Resolution of Issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.11 ............................................ 20  
V.  OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS ........................................................ 20  
VI.  IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT ................ 21  
VII. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 ............................................................................................ 21  
(a)  Information from Members on their Experiences ..................................................................... 21  
(b)  Information from Relevant Observer Organizations ................................................................ 21  
VIII. PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 ........................................................ 21  
(a)  Information from Members on their Pest or Disease Status ..................................................... 21  
(b)  Information from Members on their Experi ences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-
free Areas .................................................................................................................... .............. 22  
(c)  Information from Relevant Observer Organizations ................................................................ 23  
IX.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION ....................................................... 23  
(a)  Information from the Secretariat .............................................................................................. . 23 
(b)  Information from Members ...................................................................................................... . 24 
(c)  Information from Observers .................................................................................................... . 25 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/64 
Page 2  
 
  X.  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ..................................................................................................................... ... 26 
(a)  Workshop on SPS Coordination at Na tional and Regional Levels ........................................... 26  
(b)  Issues Arising from the Second Review (G/SPS/W/259) ......................................................... 28  
(c)  Issues Arising from the Third Review (G/SPS/GEN/1086) ..................................................... 29  
XI.  MONITORING THE USE OF IN TERNATIONAL STANDARDS .................................. 30  
(a)  New Issues .................................................................................................................... ............ 30  
(b)  Issues Previous ly Raised ...................................................................................................... ..... 30 
XII. CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
(G/SPS/55, G/SPS/W/256, G/SPS/W/261) ............................................................................. 31  
(a)  Report on the Informal Meeting ............................................................................................... 31 
XIII. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS ............................................................................ 32  
(a)  Ad hoc Observers .............................................................................................................. ........ 33 
(b)  New Requests and Outstanding Requests ................................................................................. 33  
XIV. CHAIRMAN'S ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS ......................................................................................................................... ........... 33  
XV. OTHER BUSINESS ................................................................................................................  34 
XVI. DATE AND AGENDA OF NE XT MEETING ..................................................................... 34  
  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its fifty-
second meeting on 19-20 October 2011.  The proposed  agenda for the meeting was adopted with 
amendments (WTO/AIR/3819). 
II. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
(a) Information from Members 
2. The European Union indicated that the compet ent authorities had declared the outbreak of 
Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia Coli (STEC) over on 26 July 2011, the last clinical case having 
been verified 4 July 2011.  The European Union urged Members to lift any remaining import restrictions in relation to the incident. 
3. Japan provided information on its response to the March 2011 nuclear plant accident.  The 
disaster-afflicted area and its economy had made stead y advances in reconstruction and supply chains 
had been almost completely restored.  Japan was pr oviding timely information to its trading partners, 
and distributed additional background documentation to the Committee. 
4. Madagascar informed that its acc ess to the EU market for products of animal origin had been 
authorized effective 1 July 2011, provided that  these products complied with current EU health 
regulations (G/SPS/GEN/1113).  The European Union appreciated Madagascar's efforts in complying 
with its import requirements, and looked forward to seeing trade resume in the products concerned. 
5. Canada reminded Members of the upcoming entr y into force of its regulatory changes to 
prevent the introduction and entry of aquatic animal diseases, notified in G/SPS/N/CAN/415 and 
Add.1.  As of 10 December 2011, importers of the aquatic animals listed in the amended regulations 
would need an import permit issued by Canada and a zoosanitary certificate signed by the competent 
authority of the exporting country.  Trading partne rs exporting regulated aquatic animals to Canada 
would need to negotiate zoosanitary certificates with Canada by this date (G/SPS/GEN/1122). 
6. Mexico gave details on the "Mexican Electroni c Foreign Trade Window", established through 
a presidential Decree of 14 January 2011 (G/SPS/ W/264).  The electronic window would provide a 
single reception point for foreign trade-related info rmation, and would incorporate the foreign trade 
procedures of the National Agriculture and Food Hea lth, Safety and Quality Service (SENASICA) as 
of 31 January 2012.  Mexico suggested that th e Committee discuss and recommend ways to help 
Members and international bodies to harmonize el ectronic sanitary and phytosanitary certification 
procedures.  Senegal welcomed Mexico's statemen t, and shared its own experience with national 
electronic circulation of documents.   
7. Korea reported that after the outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) on 
29 December 2010, it had implemented a stampi ng-out policy and disinfected the affected and 
neighbouring farms (G/SPS/GEN/1116).  Culling and disinfection on the last infected premises had 
been completed on 23 May 2011, and there had been no further outbreaks.  Korea had declared itself an HPAI free country as of 23 August 2011 in acco rdance with Chapter 10.4 of the OIE Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code 2011, and had notif ied this to the OIE on 5 September 2011. 
8. Argentina drew the Committee's attention to the declaration of the 36th Ministerial Meeting 
of the Cairns Group, which had touched upon sanitary and phytosanitary matters (WT/L/821). G/SPS/R/64 
Page 4  
 
  (b) Information from Observer Organizations 
9. The OIE outlined developments in its standard -setting work programme, with a focus on the 
September 2011 meeting of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission 
(G/SPS/GEN/1120).  Official recognition of freedom from African horse sickness, classical swine fever and peste de petits ruminant s was being considered.  A number of modifications to the OIE 
Basic Texts had been adopted at the May 2011 Gene ral Session, and terminology in the Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code (Terrestrial Code) had been modified as regards risk assessment.  The OIE was 
working on a new chapter on "safe commodities", pot entially for adoption at the General Session in 
May 2013.  The OIE was collaborating with Codex on  standards related to food safety hazards arising 
at the "on-farm" phase of food production.  Proposed modifications to the OIE standard-setting 
procedures had been annexed to the report of the Terrestrial Code Commission's September 2011 
meeting and Members could comment on that document.    
10. Morocco highlighted the importance of regi onalization and compartmentalization for 
developing country exports, and encouraged the OI E to work further on these themes.  The OIE noted 
that the Terrestrial Code contained chapters on zoning and compartmentalization, and guidelines and 
checklists on the issue were available on the OIE website.   
11. The IPPC reported on a focus group meeting to review the IPPC standard setting process and 
on an online system through which countries could submit comments on draft ISPMs.  An ePhyto 
standard for electronic phytosanitary certificatio n would be tested by end-2011.  The IPPC 
highlighted cooperation with OIE and Codex, and welcomed closer  engagement with the WTO SPS 
Secretariat.  A strategic plan for the next ei ght years would be submitted for adoption by the 
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures in March 2012 (G/SPS/GEN/1123). 
12. Australia stressed the importance of the IPPC 's standard-setting activities, and commended 
the strategic plan.  It encouraged all Members to lobby for increased core funding to enable the IPPC 
to carry out its functions.  Australia had provided US$570,000 to the IPPC in 2011.  The European 
Union agreed on the importance of the IPPC work and announced  €800,000 of additional funding to 
ensure continuation of the IPPC helpdesk; it had earlier provided €400,000 for the IPPC's 
Implementation Review and Support System (IRSS).  Korea also encouraged Members to contribute 
to IPPC projects. 
13. New Zealand repeated its earlier suggestion that the IPPC Secretary give a presentation of the 
IPPC's operational plan to a future meeting so  that Members could be tter understand its goals, 
objectives and strategy, and identify areas where further assistance is required.  
14. The United States noted that the encouragemen t of broader cooperation between the IPPC, 
Codex and OIE would have budgetary implicati ons, and urged Members to support the IPPC 
accordingly.  Chile observed that the area of electronic certifications could be one where the IPPC, 
Codex and OIE could enhance cooperation.  Se negal enquired whether agricultural re-export 
certificates had been considered in the developm ent of the electronic phytosanitary certification 
system.  Senegal also thanked the IPPC and Sta ndards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) for 
their regional fruit fly control programmes. 
15. Codex outlined its activities since the last Committee meeting (G/SPS/GEN/1126).  At its 
34th Session in July 2011, the Codex Commission ha d adopted 31 new or revised standards, and 
considered its strategic plans for 2008-2013 and 20 09-2014.  Codex explaine d its cooperation with 
OIE in standard-setting work, and drew a ttention to forthcoming Codex meetings. 
16. The Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) described capacity-building 
programmes carried out jointly with the African  Union and other regional economic communities  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 5 
 
 
  under the "Participation of African Nations in Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standard-Setting 
Organizations" (PAN-SPSO) project, and noted that  these programmes had enabled it to coordinate 
SPS activities in countries and establish common pos itions for Codex, IPPC and OIE meetings. 
17. The Southern African Development Commun ity (SADC) summarized developments with 
regard to the SPS Annex to the SADC Protocol on Trade.  A new SADC Regional SPS Coordinating 
Committee had (i) worked to develop cooperation betw een SADC member states  in the transfer of 
expertise;  (ii) reviewed the SPS Annex to a lign it fully with the SPS Agreement and avoid 
duplication of efforts in implementation;  and (i ii) urged SADC member states to establish national 
SPS Committees.  SADC thanked the European Uni on, the African Union-InterAfrican Bureau for 
Animal Resources (AU-IBAR), the WTO and the STDF  for their assistance in specific projects.  In 
July 2011, SADC Ministers of Agriculture had adopt ed guidelines for the regulation of food safety, 
regulation of crop protection, and veterinary drug registrati on.  In September, the 4th Regional SPS 
Stakeholder Assembly had taken place, as well as training on the WTO SPS Information Management 
System. 
18. Mali, Senegal and Togo expressed their appr eciation for CEN-SAD, COMESA and the PAN-
SPSO project, which had improved their SPS capacities,  and particularly enabled Mali and Togo to 
establish national SPS committees.  Zambia co mmended SADC on its work on information 
management and notifications.  Zambia also th anked the STDF for its work on the multi-criteria 
decision analysis tool, which was greatly appreciated by the donor community.   
III. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF 
ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
19. The Chairman recalled that in accordance with Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of 
the People's Republic of China, th e SPS Committee was to undertake th is year a final review of the 
implementation by China of the SPS Agreement.  The European Union had submitted its questions 
and comments on the subject in document G/SPS/W/262. 
20. The European Union observed that the Transiti onal Review Mechanism was a very important 
and useful instrument, which allowed Members to  exchange views regarding China's efforts to 
comply with its WTO obligations.  It noted the considerable amount of work that China had undertaken to revise its food safety standards, and en couraged China to continue efforts in order to 
fulfil the responsibilities that follow from WTO member ship.  The European Union noted that it had 
shared its specific comments and questions in do cument G/SPS/W/262, and highlighted that in its 
view, (1) China had not fully fulfilled its transparen cy obligations as regards availability of legislation 
in at least one WTO working language and possibilities to comment on all draft legislation, and that 
(2) China had not yet aligned its legislation to se veral international standards, or alternatively 
submitted scientific justification to support all the SPS measures applied.  Under the second point, the 
European Union expressed concerns over the diffe rences between the Chinese list of authorized food 
additives and processing aids and the list consider ed safe by international standard-setting bodies, 
noting that China had not given a scientific justifi cation for this deviation; and on a BSE-related 
import ban on EU beef and other bovine products desp ite an OIE classification of EU member States 
as either "controlled risk" or "negligible risk" countries.  Lastly, the European Union expressed 
concerns over China's approach to audits and inspections, and flagged that an approach that builds on 
the relevant Codex Alimentarius  standard would be the key to  avoid unjustifiable delays.  
21. The United States shared the concerns of the European Union as regard s transparency, noting 
that China did not appear to have notifie d all proposed SPS measures as required by the SPS 
Agreement.  It also shared the concerns as regard s BSE-related import bans, and highlighted in this 
respect that the OIE had classified the United St ates as a "controlled risk" country.  Further, the 
United States had specific concerns regarding Chin a's new food registration requirements, notified to G/SPS/R/64 
Page 6  
 
  the WTO as G/SPS/N/CHN/472, as well as China's ze ro tolerance limit for certain pathogens in 
imported raw meat and poultry.  Finally, the Un ited States expressed concerns regarding bans on 
poultry from various US states in response to cases of  low-pathogenic avian influenza (AI), stating 
that these bans were applied beyond the OIE guidance period. 
22. Mexico echoed the EU concerns on transparency, and encouraged further efforts by China in 
terms of publication of standards, technical regula tions and other measures, and in making their texts 
available in at least one WTO working language .  On a related point, Mexico expressed its 
appreciation for the Chinese notification on hygien e standards for distilled liquors and by-products, 
and noted that it had used this opportunity to prov ide relevant scientific information on tequila.  
Mexico also expressed concerns over the control,  inspection and approval procedures applied by 
China, noting that they had been excessively long, and that for cer tain agricultural products, access to 
the Chinese market had required bilateral negotiati ons and additional agreem ents or protocols.  
Mexico further highlighted that with certain prod ucts, such as pig meat, little progress had been made 
in this respect. 
23. Japan also shared the EU con cerns as regards transparency.  According to Japan, it appeared 
that China had not fully complied with its obligation to publish all proposed SPS measures and 
regulations and to provide a reasona ble period for public comments.   
24. China thanked the European Union, the United St ates, Mexico and Japan for their statements, 
and offered some clarifications and responses to the questions posed.  At the outset, China stated that 
it had eliminated all non-tariff measures and reduced  the average tariff on goods, and had overhauled 
its body of laws and regulations at central a nd local levels.  These achievements, China noted, 
contributed to full compliance with WTO rules and had a positive effect on trade promotion and 
facilitation at the multilateral level. 
25. China flagged that, as a developing country, it had overcome great capacity constraints to 
fully honour the principle of transparency.  It de tailed the numbers of measures notified and enquiries 
and comments dealt with, and observed that it had de dicated considerable resources to publish its SPS 
measures in a timely manner.  Ch ina also stated that it had done its best to provide a sufficient 
comment period on new SPS measures, as well as to translate the draft measures as frequently as possible into at least one WTO working language. 
26. China noted that most of the questions posed  by the European Un ion had already been 
addressed in previous reviews or discussions, includi ng at a bilateral meeting with the EU delegation 
the previous day.  Nonetheless, China addr essed some of the specific questions posed. 
27. On the EU question on food additives and processi ng aids, China noted that its practice not to 
allow the use of additives in food unless their tec hnical necessity and safety had been proven was in 
line with the principles upheld by the Codex Alimenta rius Commission.  It further referenced bilateral 
talks held with the European Union on Chin a's Administrative Licensing Procedures for New 
Varieties of Food Additives, and noted that the Eu ropean Union could encourage its companies to 
submit their applications to the competent Chin ese authority in accordance with these procedures.  
28. In relation to the questions posed on BSE, Ch ina reiterated that it was a BSE-free country, 
and stated that it had adopted its current policy on BSE prevention in a most serious, scientific and prudent manner, while taking an open and coope rative approach to engage with the Members 
concerned.  At a seminar held jointly with the European Union in March 2011, experts from both 
sides had agreed that the pathology of the di sease and the way it spreads were not thoroughly 
understood.  China expressed its willingness to cont inue to cooperate with Members suffering from 
the disease, including the European Union.  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 7 
 
 
  29. China noted that the European Union had put forward in its written submission that China's 
continued additional trade requirements on live pi gs from EU member States due to the pandemic 
influenza virus H1N1 were unnecessary and unjustified , and not in line with statements made by the 
main relevant international organizations such  as OIE, WHO and FAO.  Although the European 
Union had not addressed this issue in its oral statemen t, China provided clarificat ion of its approach to 
preventing H1N1.  China followed a two-fold appro ach:  first, there could be no H1N1 outbreak on 
the exporting farm or within a 50-kilometre radius; and second, live pigs were to be duly tested for 
H1N1 before they could be exported from the country  concerned.  China observed that it had reached 
agreements with Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and these 
countries were now engaging in the live pig trade with China as usual.   
30. In conclusion, China noted that it was read y and willing to continue discussions with 
Members in all appropriate arenas. 
IV. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.11) 
31. The Chairman recalled that this agenda item was designed to allow Members to raise any 
specific trade concerns they may have with respec t to the implementation of the Agreement.  He 
would follow the normal practice of first giving the floor to the Member(s) raising the issue, then 
open the floor to other delegates who wished to address the same issue before inviting the Member 
whose measure was being discussed to respond. 
(a) New Issues 
(i) Malaysia's Import Restrictions on Pork and Pork Products - Concerns of the European Union 
32. The European Union indicated that it had concer ns with Malaysia's import restrictions on 
pork and pork products, imposed 1 July 2011.  In bilateral discussions, however, the European Union 
had received guarantees that the restrictions would shortly be lifted.  Th e European Union would 
continue to work closely with Malaysia to ensure  that EU exports could resume in line with WTO 
obligations. 
33. Canada shared the EU concerns as its pork and pork product exports had also been banned 
since 1 July 2011 without notification.  Malaysia had not advised Canada a bout the revision to its 
import requirements or the ban, a nd Canada had received conflicting information from Malaysia with 
respect to import requirements for pork.  Canada encouraged Malaysia to base import conditions on 
science, and consider a systems approval approach for pork imports, rather than a plant-by-plant 
approval. 
34. The United States also expressed concerns that the new import requirements had been 
imposed without valid scientific evidence.  The Unite d States had been told in June 2011 that it could 
continue to export pork and por k products if it submitted an establishment questionnaire by 
1 July 2011;  however, imports had been stopped.  The United States would continue to work with 
Malaysia to facilitate an audit of US food safety sy stems, but expected a successful audit that would 
allow all federally inspected pork establishments  to be eligible to export to Malaysia. 
35. Malaysia observed that bilatera l consultations on this issue were on-going with the affected 
Members and it hoped to resolve the issue as soon as possible. G/SPS/R/64 
Page 8  
 
  (ii) China's Requirement for Registration and Sup ervision of Foreign Enterprises - Concerns of 
India 
36. India raised concerns over China's notificati on on "Provisions on the Administration of the 
Registration of Foreign Manufacturers of Imported Foods" (G/SPS/N/CHN/472) of 19 August 2011.  
Foreign manufacturers of foods listed in a "Catal ogue of Registration of Foreign Manufacturers of 
Imported Foods" would not be able to export their products to China without registration.  India 
enquired when this catalogue would be issued and requested further information on possible 
registration fees and processing times.  
37. The European Union echoed these concerns, and indicated that it had provided written 
comments on the notified measure, and hoped that  China would take them into account.  The 
requirements in the notified measure seemed burdens ome and costly, and not necessarily in line with 
the requirements of the SPS Agreement. 
38. China explained that the notified measure wa s not new, but would repeal the original 
registration requirement, established in March 2002.  The registration procedures would not include 
fees, only guidance on how to register.  The questio n whether there would be any other charges was 
still under discussion, and would be announced separat ely after approval.  Re gistration renewal should 
be requested before expiration, and as food enterpri ses were categorized according to different risk 
levels, the application process and specific verifi cation requirements would differ accordingly.   
(iii) EU Regulations on Cadmium in Co coa Beans - Concerns of Ecuador 
39. Ecuador expressed concern that the Europ ean Union was considering modifying the 
maximum level of cadmium in cocoa and cocoa prod ucts, and was planning to  apply a maximum limit 
between 0.3 and 0.5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), in the context of Regulation (EU) 
No 420/2001.  Ecuador urged the European Uni on to base any maximum limits on cadmium on 
appropriate scientific studies.  The Joint F AO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) 
had established a level of acceptable weekly co nsumption of 5.8 micrograms of cadmium per 
kilogram of body weight (µg/kg), more than twic e the tolerable weekly intake concluded by the 
European Food Safety Agency (EFSA).  Ecuador requested further information on the EU risk 
analysis, and stressed that any possible maximum residue limit (MRL) should be set as low as 
reasonably possible (ALARP principle).  Some of Ecuador's soil contained cadmium, but it had 
adopted mitigation measures so as to produce high-qua lity cocoa not detrimental to human health.   
40. Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Repub lic, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela shared 
the concerns raised by Ecuador.  They asked th e European Union to provide the technical and 
scientific basis on which it was considering regulatin g cadmium in cocoa and chocolate, and stressed 
that any possible maximum limits should be based on science. 
41. The European Union recalled that neither it nor Codex had established a maximum level for 
cadmium in cocoa or cocoa products to date.  However, JECFA had reviewed its toxicity in 
commodities in 2010 and set the tolerable weekly intake at approximately six micrograms per 
kilogram of body weight.  In contrast, EFSA had identified a lower tolerable weekly intake of 
2.5 µg/kg of body weight in 2009 and in 2010.  Based on the 2009 and 2010 EFSA scientific opinions 
for cadmium, the European Union had initiated a revi ew of maximum levels for cadmium in different 
types of foodstuffs, including chocolate and cocoa products sold to the final consumer, since cocoa and chocolate products contribute significantly to human exposure and in particular exposure of 
children.  Discussions were still on-going, but any li mits would be based on realistic occurrence data 
of cadmium in cocoa and cocoa products compiled fr om different geographical origins and would be 
set as low as reasonably achievable.  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (iv) Thailand's Restrictions on Table Grapes, Apples and Pears - Concerns of South Africa 
42. South Africa indicated that its exports of fresh  fruit, particularly table grapes, apples and 
pears, had been stopped as a result of Thailand's ne w Plant Quarantine Act No. 3.  The Act prohibited 
imports of certain fresh produce until a pest risk anal ysis (PRA) was completed.  An interim provision 
allowed the entry of products imported to Thailand prior to the prohibition, pending completion of the 
PRA.  South Africa had sought to invoke this provision, which allowed for a case-by-case approval, 
and had proposed certain minimum requirements until the PRA was completed.  South Africa urged 
Thailand to apply the interim arrangeme nt to its exports, and to concl ude the PRA so that trade in the 
affected products could resume. 
43. Thailand confirmed that the importation of certa in fresh fruit and plants was prohibited until 
the national plant protection organization (NPPO) had completed a PRA.  South Africa had been 
granted an interim exemption for its corn exports , but had not requested exemptions for any other 
fresh produce within the set deadline.  Thailand su ggested that the NPPOs of both countries engage 
directly to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the issue.  
(v) EU Court of Justice Ruling regarding Pollen D erived from GMOs - Concerns of Argentina 
44. Argentina stated that on 6 September 2011, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had adopted 
a new interpretation of the scope of EC Regula tion No. 1829/2003, considering pollen derived from 
GM crops as an ingredient of honey and not a na tural component.  This was in conflict with the 
Codex standard for honey.  The ruling resulted in le gal uncertainty, which lead European importers to 
interrupt purchases of honey produced in Argentina pending the implementation of the ruling, to the detriment of the very small scale beekeepers and regional economies that depended on this activity.  
Argentina requested the European Union to prom ptly take all necessary measures to remove the 
uncertainty caused by the ECJ judgment, and to en sure that implementation of the ECJ judgment did 
not restrict honey imports. 
45. Canada, Mexico, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay shared the concerns of Argentina.  
Mexico expressed its appreciation for having been invited for further discussions in Brussels on the 
implementation of the ECJ decision.  Brazil empha sized that the EU policy regarding GMOs was 
trade restrictive and observed that it faced similar problems concerning red beans. 
46. The European Union observed that honey containing GM pollen had previously been 
considered to be outside the scope  of the relevant legislation.  Following the ruling, GM pollen in 
honey must be explicitly authorized before en tering the EU market, a nd imported honey products 
which contained GMOs that were not authorized for use in pollen would not be allowed.  Even though 
the specific GM crop in this case (MON 810) had b een authorized in the European Union for more 
than ten years, it had not been authorized for u ses which included pollen.  The European Union was 
taking steps to fill the existing regulatory gaps until EFSA provided an opinion on the safety of the MON 810 pollen in honey, and was considering how to ensure the proper implementation of the 
ruling without unnecessarily disrupting the supply of hone y to EU consumers.  It would be holding 
open dialogues with its member States, all inte rested third countries and other stakeholders. 
(vi) US Default MRLs, Limits of Determination or  Limits of Quantification on Basmati Rice - 
Concerns of India  
47. India stated that in August 2011, the US F DA issued an import alert because of the presence 
of the fungicide Tricyclazole in a shipment of Basmati rice.  The shipment was detained without 
informing either the Indian Government or the expor ter, and all subsequent consignments of Basmati 
rice by that exporter were detained without physical  examination.  The US tolerance was at the Limit 
of Quantification, and consignments were being rejected for Tricyclazole residues exceeding G/SPS/R/64 
Page 10  
 
  0.01 ppm.  These detentions and the imposition of t esting charges had resulted in huge losses to the 
exporter.  Tricyclazole was a fungicide used for treat ment of Blast in rice.  The US tolerance limits 
conflicted with Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement, which required Members to take into account the 
objective of minimizing negative trade effects, as Tricyc lazole was widely used in India, China, Japan 
and Thailand for treatment of Blast.  Further, Ar ticle 5.5 was not respected as the FDA permitted 
MRLs of Tricyclazole in rice bran, rice hulls and ri ce polishings of up to 30 ppm.  No risk assessment, 
as mandated by Articles 2.2 and 5.1, seems to have  been undertaken while setting the tolerance limit 
for Tricyclazole.  India argued that the practice of  setting default limits was contrary to the core 
principles of the SPS Agreement as there appeared to be no scientific justification, and it seemed to be 
contrary to the principle of harmonization of Article 3. 
48. The United States replied that under the US Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a food was 
deemed adulterated if it contained a pesticide fo r which there was no EPA-established tolerance or 
exemption, and food that is adulterated is not ad mitted into the United States.  Several firms and 
products, had been added to FDA's Import Alert #99- 08, "Detention Without Physical Examination of 
Processed Foods due to Illegal Pesticide Residues"  Products, including persimmon and rice flour, as 
well as basmati rice from three countries, had been subject to an Import Alert due to detection of 
Tricyclazole.  The Government of India and the ex porter were notified about the detention.  When a 
shipment was detained, the importer had the opport unity to demonstrate that the shipment did not 
contain the residue, and FDA usually accepted privat e laboratory analysis as evidence that there are 
no residues.  No tolerances for the use of Tricycl azole as a pesticide in rice had been established by 
EPA.  The EPA had established to lerances for rice for three alternative fungicides, namely 
Azoxystrobin, Propiconazole, and Trifloxystrobin.  I ndia could use one of the alternative fungicides to 
combat rice Blast or work with EPA to establish a to lerance for Tricyclazole in the United States.  The 
Codex had not established a maximum tolerance level for Tricyclazole in any food.  The United States 
encouraged India to work with EPA and FDA to address the concerns. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised 
(i) EU Regulation on Polyamide and Melamine Plastic Kitchenware - Concerns of China 
(No. 322) 
49. China recalled that EU Regulation No. 284/2011, adopted in March 2011, required special 
measures on imports of polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware produced in or shipped from 
mainland China and Hong Kong, China.  Consulta tions with EU officials had not resolved the 
problem.  China requested all notifications con cerning plastic kitchenware under the Rapid Alert 
System, not only those from China and Hong Kong, Ch ina, to ensure that the EU measures were not 
arbitrary or unjustifiably discriminatory.  China also  requested the European Union to provide data, its 
risk analysis, and testing reports of the substances found in plastic kitchenware, to prove the measures 
were based on sufficient scientific evidence. 
50. Hong Kong, China was also concerned that the EU measure was discriminatory, as it imposed 
more stringent import requirements on consignmen ts from Hong Kong, China compared to other 
countries.  The EU regulation was not based on an  international standard , and Hong Kong, China 
urged the European Union to eliminate any discrimination against products originating in or consigned from Hong Kong, China. 
51. The European Union indicated that it had e xplained the scope of the regulation and its 
applicability in bilateral discussions with China, in  November 2010, and also with Hong Kong, China, 
and had sent copies of the final draft regulation to the respective relevant authorities both before and 
after the discussions.  An EU contact point had been established to help exchanges between the 
competent authorities.  The measure had been notif ied to the WTO at the beginning of July 2011 
(G/SPS/N/EEC/406) to ensure that Members woul d better understand the discussions on this trade  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 11 
 
 
  concern.  Mandatory border controls for plastic  kitchenware imported from China and Hong Kong, 
China had been imposed as of 1 July 2011 due to the high number of alerts received regarding the 
non-compliance of these products.  The inspecti on missions carried out by the EU Food and 
Veterinary Office (FVO) to China and Hong Kong, Ch ina had also shown that China had deficiencies 
in its export control systems for these products.  The particular measures in question were applied 
only to China and Hong Kong, China, but were not discriminatory.  The measures did not impose 
burdens additional to what was applicable to EU products, were limited to the extent necessary to 
control the identified risks, and were scientifica lly justified on the basis of an opinion from EFSA.  
The measures would remain in place until the borde r controls revealed a significant drop in non-
conforming products, and China's e xport controls were improved. 
(ii) US Food Safety and Modernization Act - C oncerns of China and India (No. 299) 
52. China emphasized the importance of food and agricultural exports for developing country 
Members, and urged the United States to provide a sufficient transition period before implementation 
of the US Food Safety Modernization Act (FSM A), as well as technical assistance for Members to 
adapt to the new requirements. 
53. India stated that the FSMA created extra burdens  for exporters and lead to higher transaction 
costs.  India argued that various provisions of the FSMA did not reflect the core principles of 
equivalence (Article 4) and harm onization (Article 3) of the SPS Agreement, and urged the United 
States to ensure the FSMA was in  line with the SPS Agreement so as not to affect trade between 
Members.  India's key concerns related to the re gistration of Foreign Food Facilities, the Voluntary 
Qualified Importer Program, Certif ication and Audit and the Foreign Supplier Verification Program. 
54. The United States noted that FDA was as tr ansparent as possible, including making 
presentations to the SPS Committee, holding numer ous outreach sessions with all stakeholders, 
keeping current information on the Web.  The Un ited States was committed to implement FSMA in a 
transparent manner consistent with its WTO obligati ons and would take into account relevant Codex 
standards and guidelines.  The FDA had issued in terim final rules requiring persons submitting prior 
notice of imported food to report any other count ries' refusal of the food (G/SPS/N/USA/690/Add.11) 
and had also amended criteria used to order admi nistrative detention of food for human or animal 
consumption (G/SPS/N/USA/704/Add.2).  The FDA had not yet issued regulations for the FSMA 
provisions for the foreign supplier and voluntary importer programmes.  Members could comment 
when the proposed rules were notified.  The Unit ed States welcomed Members' perspectives on 
implementation of the FSMA. 
(iii) Japan's MRLs applied to Cacao - Concerns of Ecuador (No. 283) 
55. Ecuador recalled that in June 2005, Japan ha d notified its intention to apply a positive list 
system for the adoption of MRLs, however, the docum ent annexed to the notification did not indicate 
that the MRLs would be 0.01 ppm.  The result was that while 12 companies used to export cacao to 
Japan, now only five could do so.  In 2006, sales to Japan were US$20.7 million, and accounted for 
12.4 million metric tons.  However, between 2007 and 2010 both the volume and value of exports 
dropped by more than 60 per cent.  Since the issu e was first raised, many Members had repeatedly 
asked Japan to provide its risk anal ysis to scientifically justify the application of the MRLs.  Ecuador 
urged Japan to consider the EU methodology of anal yzing residues in the kernel and not on the husk, 
and to accept the International Cocoa Organization (I CCO) standards.  Paraguay shared the views of 
Ecuador and emphasized that the MRLs must be science-based. 
56. Japan observed that it had repeatedly requested  the Government of Ecuador to file an 
application with the relevant Japanese authorities to  revise the MRLs, providing sufficient data.  The G/SPS/R/64 
Page 12  
 
  current 0.01 ppm limit was the same  used by the European Union.  Before the MRL was set, Japan 
had notified the WTO in accordance with the SPS Agreement.   
(iv) Viet Nam's Ban on Offals - Concerns of the European Union and the United States (No. 314) 
57. The European Union indicated that Viet Nam' s ban, in place since July 2010, seriously 
affected EU exports of offal, and recalled that Vi et Nam had previously indicated its intention to 
conduct a risk-assessment.  Viet Nam claimed to have taken these measures because imported frozen 
animals and animal products were found to violate its food safety requirements.  However, Viet Nam 
had indicated that no violations were found on EU  products, and as such import bans on EU offal 
were not justified.  Moreover, since there were  no similar measures on domestic offal, the measure 
discriminated against foreign imports.  The European  Union welcomed Viet Nam's partial lifting of 
the ban on red offal, and looked forward to Viet Nam's commitment to lift the ban by end of 2011. 
58. The United States shared concerns about Viet  Nam's restrictions on offal without any 
scientific justification or notification being provided to the WTO or trading partners.  After months of 
discussions, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) had provided an official 
indication in July 2011 that it would lift its ban on  red offal, and later on products derived from cattle.  
However, all other products, such as stomachs and intestines derived from cattle, swine, and poultry, 
remained banned.  The United States urged Viet Na m to lift all of the bans on offal immediately. 
59. New Zealand supported the systemic concerns  expressed by the European Union and the 
United States, specifically with regard to the l ack of notification and scientific justification. 
60. Viet Nam reiterated that the temporary measure was geared at protecting human health from 
risks arising from contaminants, toxins or disease-caus ing organisms in food, and that the measure did 
not aim to impose trade restrictions.  In light of the concerns of its trading partners, Viet Nam was 
considering how to prevent a negative trade impact from the measure, and had already lifted the ban 
on red offals.  However, as a developing country with limited resources, the Vietnamese authorities 
needed time to collect the inform ation for risk assessments.  Viet Nam urged trading partners to 
provide relevant information and technical  cooperation to facilitate the process.  
(v) Japan's Prohibition of Certain Food Add itives - Concerns of India (No. 307) 
61. India remained concerned that food additives we re being prohibited on the basis that they 
were not in use in Japan, without a risk assessment.  Japan had stated at the last Committee meeting 
that it was willing to update the list of food additiv es, if India provided information that these items 
were actually in use in the Japanes e market.  In this regard, India was working to get the necessary 
information and provide the relevant documents to Japan as soon as possible.  In the meantime, India 
urged Japan to temporarily permit the use of  these additives while Japan conducted the risk 
assessments.  
62. Japan reiterated that as of 6 May 2011, 55 s ubstances had been withdrawn from the list of 
existing food additives, as the list of food additiv es was up-dated by removing those that were no 
longer in use in the Japanese market .  However, in accordance with the Food and Sanitation Act, if an 
application were filed that provide d relevant evidence that any of the withdrawn substances were still 
in circulation in the Japanese market, the authorities would update the list. 
(vi) Chinese Taipei's Prohibition on Ractopamine in Beef and Pork - Concerns of the United 
States (No. 275) 
63. The United States observed that ractopamine wa s approved for use in the United States and 
25 other countries.  In 2007, Chinese Taipei had conducted its own risk ass essment and determined  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 13 
 
 
  ractopamine was safe for use in cattle and swine, and notified its intention to implement MRLs for 
ractopamine consistent with the draft Code x MRLs (G/SPS/N/TPKM/114).  However, staunch 
opposition by pork producers to foreign imports resulte d in delays in the implementation of the draft 
MRLs.  These actions raised concerns because there was no scientific basis for questioning the safety 
of the use of ractopamine within the MRLs set by  the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea and many 
other countries.  The failure of Chinese Taipei to adopt measures based on its own risk assessment 
resulted in significant trade barriers for US exports of beef and pork.  In order to avoid further 
unjustified restrictions, Chinese Taipei should im mediately implement the 10 ppb MRL that it had 
notified in August 2007.  The United States encour aged Chinese Taipei and all Members to ensure 
that measures were based on science, and not to use media to unnecessarily scare consumers in order 
to maintain trade barriers. 
64. Canada shared the concerns of the United States  regarding the lack of scientific justification 
for the prohibition of ractopamine in pork and beef, and the creation of considerable uncertainty for 
beef and pork exporters.  Based on a comprehensive risk assessment, Canada had approved the use of 
ractopamine as an ingredient in feed for pigs in 2005 and for cattle in 2007,  and established MRLs for 
ractopamine in edible swine and cattle tissues.  The scientific assessments conducted by Codex and 
JECFA supported the adoption of MRLs for ractopami ne.  Given the extensive scientific evidence, 
Canada requested Chinese Taipei to reconsider its cu rrent prohibition. 
65. Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Peru expressed  systemic concerns on the prohibition of 
ractopamine, including the lack of a scientific basi s for such prohibitions, and were also concerned 
that the MRLs for ractopamine had not yet been  adopted by Codex.  Brazil emphasized that 
ractopamine had been proven safe and effective as a veterinary drug that increased feed efficiency, 
had undergone human and animal safety studies and been approved in 26 countries.   
66. Chinese Taipei responded that it was continuing to investigate the adverse effects of this drug 
on human health, as it had fully explained at prev ious SPS Committee meetings, while increasing its 
efforts regarding risk communication.   
(vii) European Union's Maximum Residue Levels of Pesticides - Concerns of India (No. 306) 
67. India recalled that the European Union had previously claimed to have a non-discriminatory, 
open, transparent and predictable procedure fo r setting MRLs.  However, India questioned the 
scientific basis for using the level of detecti on (LOD) method and for setting MRLs for certain 
pesticides at default levels of 0.01 mg/kg, as we ll as the validation testing methods used by the 
European Union to arrive at the level of de tection.  The EU method of setting MRLs was 
discriminatory as it affected the trade of certain pr oducts and did not conform to the SPS Agreement.  
India had been informed that a Member could a pply for a higher MRL, however the EU procedure 
was lengthy, costly and burdensome.  India urged the European Union to replace its ad hoc discriminatory, opaque, and unscientific measures with more predictable and science-based ones. 
68. The European Union stated that the legisla tive framework in operation since 2008 completed 
the harmonization and simplification of pesticide MR Ls, and the details of the EU pesticides policy 
had been presented at the March SPS Committee meeti ng.  Trading partners could apply for an MRL 
that was greater than what was foreseen in th e EU legislation by providing scientific evidence 
justifying the higher level.  The procedure was non- discriminatory, open and transparent.  Setting the 
MRLs at the default level for some pesticides fa cilitated trade, in contrast to a zero-tolerance 
approach.  Trade had not been interrupted as a result of this legislation, and particularly not in 
commodities of interest to India.  In line with th e EU legislation, India ha d applied for a higher MRL 
for Isoprothiolane on rice, and submitted compleme ntary information.  An opinion from the EFSA 
was expected in the first quarter of 2012, and on the basis of this evalua tion, the European Union 
would decide whether a higher MRL could be safely set. G/SPS/R/64 
Page 14  
 
  (viii) Turkey's Restrictions on Products Derived from  Biotechnology - Concerns of the United 
States (No. 302) 
69. The United States stated that Turkey's new biosafety law restricted access for many US 
products derived from agricultural biotechnology.  Trade had been re-established only for some 
products previously approved for import.  The Janua ry 2011 approval of three soy beans events for 
feed use was welcome, however, these events ha d previously been permitted also for use in food 
production.  No other events were approved for eith er food or feed use, although such products were 
permitted prior to the biosafety law.  Despite nume rous bilateral discussions, many of the provisions 
of the regulatory system remained unclear.  The system prohibited the presence of biotechnology in products for infants and children, or the cultivati on of biotechnology crops, without a risk assessment 
or scientific evidence.  The criteria to evaluate bi otech products for import was not clear, which lead 
to unpredictability in the approva l process.  Turkey's ban on industrial use and cotton certification 
requirements appeared unnecessary and raised c oncerns among importers about possible legal 
consequences.  The recent decision to  allow soy bean oil to be used in the paint sector was a step in 
the right direction.  The United States reiterated its in terest to work with Turkey to develop solutions 
that would resolve the current problems and prevent future disruptions to trade. 
70. Canada supported the United States.  Canada a ppreciated Turkey's recent response to its letter 
on GMO regulation, but a number of questions and c oncerns which had been raised at previous SPS 
Committee meetings and bilaterally re mained.  Several provisions of th e regulation lacked a scientific 
basis and were unduly restrictive on trade, in par ticular the provisions related to the GMO approval 
process, the liability provision, a ba n on GMO cultivation, mandatory labelling, and the certification 
and inspection regime.  Canada also asked Turkey to notify its implementation directives in order to 
clarify the authorization status of GMOs in Turk ey.  Argentina supported the concerns of the United 
States and Canada, and urged Turkey to bring its biotechnology regulations into line with the SPS 
Agreement. 
71. Turkey responded that its biosafety regula tions had been notified in 2009 and 2010 
(G/SPS/N/TUR/7 and G/SPS/N/TUR/8).  Turkey had taken into consideration the comments from 
five Members during the preparation of the legislati on.  Implementation of the legislation started on 
26 September 2010, following a six-month transition period, and since then 184 transactions had been 
completed and over one million tons of products de rived from GMOs imported into Turkey.  About 
one-third of these importations came from the Un ited States, about 16 per cent from Argentina and 
3 per cent from Canada.  Around 80 applications fo r authorization were being examined by the 
scientific committee in the relevant ministry, however,  there were limits to their technical capacity to 
expedite the process.  No application for authorizatio n had been rejected to date.  Furthermore, since 
the last SPS Committee meeting, agricultural imports had continued to increase at a significant rate;  
there were no disruptions of trade due to the biotech nology legislation.  Turkey was willing to further 
clarify the legislation and its implementation to interested Members. 
(ix) Application and Modification of  the EU Regulation on Novel Foods - Concerns of Peru 
(No. 238) 
72. Peru recalled its concerns about Regulation 258/ 97 that restricted foods which were not 
marketed in the European Union before May 1997 and had therefore been categorized as novel foods 
(G/SPS/GEN/1117).  This particularly affected trad e in Peruvian traditional foods that were safely 
sold in the United States and Japan.  Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and 
Paraguay shared the concerns raised by Peru. 
73. The European Union stated that foods were c onsidered novel under Regulation 258/97 if they 
were derived from new technological processes or if they had no significant history of consumption in 
Europe.  In January 2008, steps were taken to upda te the existing novel food rules in an effort to  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 15 
 
 
  facilitate applications for novel food authorizati ons and to simplify market access for traditional 
foodstuffs which had a history of safe food use.  Howe ver, the proposal submitted to the co-legislators 
was not adopted, and there was as yet no new nove l food regulation.  Nonetheless, agreement had 
already been reached between the European co-legislators that any new regulation would contain a 
centralized and quicker authorization procedure fo r novel foods and specific measures for traditional 
foods. 
(x) Philippine Restrictions on Imported Fresh Meat  - Concerns of the United States (No. 320) 
74. The United States stated that Administrative Order Number 22 (AO 22) of the Philippines had 
disproportionately affected trade from other countries.   It was not clear why the prescribed cold chain 
requirement for frozen, chilled meat and chilled meat  products, which were primarily imported, was 
not being equally applied to fresh meat.  The traceability, packaging and labelling requirements in 
both AO 22 and the new draft Administrative Order imposed additional burdens on the marketing and sale of frozen meat and meat products in the Phili ppines, yet there was apparently no risk assessment 
to support the adoption of these measures.  There see med to be no scientific justification for this 
requirement, which appeared to discriminate agai nst imports, and which undermined the food safety 
advantages of frozen meat.  The United States requested the suspension of AO 22 as well its 
notification to the WTO. 
75. Canada and the European Union shared the concern that AO 22, as well as its draft 
replacement, only addressed the safety of frozen chille d meat and provided no scientific rationale for 
imposing different food safety measures than for fresh meat, which disproportionately affected 
imported meat.  Canada noted its current work with the Philippine officials to provide scientific data 
and analysis to support a risk assessment on the hand ling practices of fresh meat in the Philippines, 
and requested that AO 22 be suspended until the repl acement measures were amended to include food 
safety requirements for fresh meat comparable to  those established for frozen chilled meat.  The 
European Union  noted that no supporting risk asse ssment had been provided by the Philippines, and 
since the measure had not been notified to the WTO there was no opportunity for comments from 
trading partners to be taken into account. 
76. The Philippines responded that AO 22 was a post-border measure on the handling of frozen 
and chilled meat and meat products that aimed at  improving the country's meat hygiene and safety 
system up to the point of retail sale.  AO 22 di d not impose additional requirements and did not 
modify the provisions related to pre-border measures for the export of meat and meat products to the 
Philippines.  The basis for this measure was th e USDA code for frozen meat, which required that 
thawing be done under chilled conditi ons and a cold chain be maintained until consumption.  This was 
recommended also by the Codex Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods (CAC/RCP 8-1976) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  AO 22 was not discriminatory as it applied to both imported and locally  produced meat, but not to freshly slaughtered 
meat, which was a different product.  There were no Codex standards for warm meat products.  The 
Philippines noted the constructive discussion they r ecently had with the United States and looked 
forward to resolve this issue quickly. 
(xi) US Import Restrictions on Plants and Plant Pr oducts - Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 102) 
77. The European Union stated that it first rai sed this issue in July 2001 focussing on import 
restrictions on potted plants.  Specific bilateral e fforts had been on-going at technical level since 2008, 
however, the issue remained unresolved.  US proced ures to set import requirements for plants, fruits 
and vegetables were organized in three principle ph ases, and each of these steps was time consuming.  
The European Union made every effort to ensure that EU applications were well-prepared and in G/SPS/R/64 
Page 16  
 
  conformity with all requirements, and expected th e United States to deal with all EU applications 
rapidly. 
78. The United States replied that the USDA Animal  Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
had provided detailed responses to the multiple requ ests for market access from various EU member 
States.  Progress had been made on several of these issues.  In November 2010, the US market was 
opened to wall rocket from the United Kingdom, which had been identified as a top priority by the 
European Union.  APHIS was close to publishing  a final rule that would address the issue of 
bromeliads, which was the EU priority for plants in growing media.  APHIS was also working to develop a joint protocol for the export of appl es and pears from several EU member States, and 
continued to work on numerous other market access requests identified as EU priorities.  In addition, 
APHIS had made considerable progress on other requ ests, for instance on apricots and avocados from 
Spain.  The US approach of requesting additional information or clarification on a particular point 
often helped avoid delays a nd resulted in fewer denials. 
(xii) Indonesia's Restrictions on Poultry Meat - Concerns of Brazil (No. 286) 
79. Brazil observed that it fulfilled all OIE require ments related to poultry meat and exported 
poultry products to more than 170 countries, but th e Indonesian market remain ed closed.  In October 
2009, Brazil had questioned the scientific basis of I ndonesia's prohibition, but despite several bilateral 
meetings, the Indonesian market re mained closed to Brazilian chicken, duck and turkey meat.  
Regarding chicken meat, Indonesia had recently i ssued Decree 50/Permentan/OT.140/9/2011, which 
prohibited, without any scientific justification, im ports of whole chicken and mechanically separated 
chicken meat products.  In relati on to duck and turkey meat, although Indonesia had agreed to send a 
mission to Brazil to approve establishments, it had not responded to repeated requests from Brazil to 
set a date for the mission. 
80. Indonesia replied that the issue had been discu ssed extensively during the meeting of the 
bilateral Agriculture Working Group, and during the Brazil-Indonesia Joint Commission in October 
2011.  During the consultations, Indonesia had inform ed Brazil that it needed more time to ensure 
internal coordination before sending the inspection mi ssion to Brazil, and that the Indonesian Ministry 
of Agriculture would conduct its technical research in 2012. 
(xiii) India's Restrictions due to Avian Influe nza - Concerns of the European Union and United 
States (No. 185) 
81. The United States recalled that it had raised this concern on numerous occasions, as bilateral 
efforts to resolve the matter had not succeeded, and on 19 July 2011, India had published an extension 
of the restrictions.  The United States did not consider  that the restrictions were justified by the risk 
assessment provided by India, and had requested the re moval of the restrictions or modification of the 
risk assessment by 19 August 2011, but no respon se had been received.  The United States and 
European Union had thus jointly requested the OIE to provide an expert opinion of the risk assessment document provided by India.  The OIE ha d provided a copy of its expert opinion to India, 
the European Commission and the United States on 4 October 2011, and the United States requested 
that the OIE be given the floor to summarize its findings. 
82. The European Union also indicated that, as it had already stated earlier, the risk analysis 
provided by India was not complete and did not ev aluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or 
spread of the disease, and the associated potential biological and economic consequences, nor had the document led to any changes to the OIE standards.   The European Union urged India to bring its 
import requirements fully into line with the releva nt international standards, including through the 
recognition of regionalization.    G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 17 
 
 
  83. After offering the floor to other Members, the Ch airman gave the floor to the OIE.  However, 
India requested, as a point of order, clarification of  the procedures regarding participation of observer 
organizations in the discussion of specific trade con cerns.  The Secretariat noted that according to the 
rules of procedure of the Committee, observers c ould be given the floor under any agenda item, and 
that it was the practice in the Committee to give international organizations the floor regarding 
specific trade concerns that rela ted to international standards. 
84. The OIE indicated that, at the request of th e European Union and the United States, it had 
asked two experts to review India's risk assessment .  The experts had concluded that the scope and 
purpose of the risk assessment was not clearly defi ned, and that the assessment was poorly supported 
by references to the relevant scientific literature .  The experts had concluded that the document did 
not meet the definition of an import risk analysis as set out in Chapter 2.1 of the OIE Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code. 
85. India clarified that it had not formally provided any scientific risk assessment to the OIE.  In 
October 2010, India had provided a summary report on an informal basis to the European Union and 
the United States.  India clarified that the document had also been provided to the OIE on an informal 
basis, and that it was a summary document, not a fu ll risk assessment.  India considered that it was 
inappropriate for the OIE to comment on an inco mplete document and also questioned whether the 
OIE had a mandate to validate a risk analysis of a Member.  Furthermore, in a letter dated 
September 2011, India had requested the OIE to review  its guidelines in order to prevent the spread of 
important diseases to developing countries that did no t have the resources to contain and control such 
diseases.  India has also detailed the justifications for its restrictions varying from the OIE guidelines 
in that letter, and was awaiting a reply from the OIE.  
86. The United States observed that the OIE's comments confirmed that India's measures were 
not in accordance with the international standards, nor were they supported by a risk assessment.  If 
this was not a final risk assessment, India should i mmediately remove the trade restrictions that had 
been maintained for nearly five year s without sufficient scientific support. 
87. The OIE indicated that at the SPS Committee meeting in October 2010, they had received 
from India a copy of the same risk analysis documen t which they had been requested to review by the 
European Union and the United States. 
88. Chile, Argentina and Peru noted that the expe rt opinion provided by the OIE was different 
than information provided in the past regarding how  particular measures compared with the relevant 
international standards, and suggested that the Co mmittee should in future c onsider whether it was the 
appropriate role of the international standard-setti ng bodies to validate the risk analysis relied upon by 
a Member.   
89. The European Union recalled that it had previ ously questioned whether India's measures were 
based on a valid risk assessment, and stressed that  the key question now was whether India would 
continue to maintain these measures, or bri ng them into line with the OIE standards. 
90. As a subsequent point of order, India questi oned whether the OIE should have been permitted 
to take the floor on this issue as per the procedur es and provisions of the Committee and Agreement.  
Under Annex 3 of WT/L/161, the purpose of granting ob server status was to enab le an organization to 
follow discussions on matters of direct interest to  them.  The agreement between the WTO and the 
OIE (WT/L/272) also indicated that the OIE would be invited to participate in deliberations on agenda 
items on which the OIE had an interest.  The OIE was a highly reputed organization recognized for its 
standard-setting for animal health and zoonosis, howe ver India did not consider that it was appropriate 
for an observer to judge a Member’s rights and oblig ations.  India considered that other Members had 
the right to comment on each other's measures and po licies, but that this right was not extended to G/SPS/R/64 
Page 18  
 
  observers and that allowing observers to expr ess judgements on Members' policies had serious 
systematic consequences.  Under Article 13 of th e SPS Agreement, a Member was fully responsible 
for the observation of all of the obligations set out therein, and in India's view the OIE could not be considered to have an interest in how India was ca rrying out its risk assessment.  India thus requested 
that the intervention of the OIE not be reflected  in the report of the Committee meeting.    
91. The United States recalled that on numerous occasions since this issue had been raised the 
OIE had provided clarification when a Member has claimed that its measure was consistent with the 
international standards for avian influenza.  India had indicated for many years that its measure was 
justified by a risk assessment, which was finally provided in October 2010.  It was only in June 2011 
that India indicated that this was a draft risk assessment, and at that time India had invited comments 
on its document.  It was in this light that the Un ited States and European Union had requested the OIE 
to review the document, and the assessment of th e OIE should be reflected in the report of the 
meeting.  The United States welcomed the suggesti on that the Committee consider the issue of the 
role of observers, and in particular of the Three Sist er organizations, in the work of the Committee.   
92. The European Union indicated that it understood the concern that the international 
organizations should not interpret the rights and obligations of Members under the SPS Agreement.  
These three organizations had a specific role to play in the Committee as the developers of the 
reference standards, hence the current practice in the Committee to rely on the advice and information 
provided by these organizations with regard to thei r standards and guidelines.  The question that had 
been posed to the OIE in this case was whether the import risk assessment conformed to the OIE 
guidelines for such an assessment.  The European Union did not understand the statement from the 
OIE to be an interpretation of the rights and obl igations of any Member under the SPS Agreement.  
93. The Chairman recalled that Rule 36 of th e Rules of Procedure of the SPS Committee 
(G/L/170) indicated that a summary report of each m eeting would be prepared by the Secretariat.  As 
there was no consensus in the Committee to not in clude the statement of the OIE as requested by 
India, the Chairman ruled that the summary report s hould clearly reflect the debate on this matter.  In 
accordance with Rule 36, any delegation could request, within 10 days of the close of the meeting, the 
opportunity to verify those portions of the draft repor t containing their statements prior to the issuance 
of the summary report. 
(xiii) South Africa's Import Restrictions on Fresh Pork Meat - Concerns of Brazil (No. 287) 
94. Brazil expressed concerns that since 2005, South Africa had suspended imports of beef and 
pork meat from Brazil due to a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the country.  Numerous attempts 
to reopen the South African market to Brazilia n pork had been blocked by repeated unnecessary 
requests for additional information.  Brazil had also  sent at least four missions to South Africa and 
had invited South Africa to hold bilateral meetings  on the margins of SPS Committee meetings.  Since 
2006, Brazil had provided information on the country's  sanitary status and responded to all questions 
from South Africa.  In February 2010, intense negotia tions had finally resulted in the authorization of 
exports of Brazilian bovine meat to South Africa,  but not Brazilian pork meat.  Although bovine and 
swine herds could be affected by FMD, the 2005 outbreak had affected only the bovine herd, and 
South Africa's delay in accepting Brazilian pork meat could not be scientifically justified.  Brazil 
requested that South Africa make a final, scien tifically sound decision and promptly allow the 
importation of Brazilian pork meat. 
95. South Africa affirmed that it was committed to resolve the problem soon, as demonstrated by 
the technical cooperation between the South Afri can and Brazilian officials.  South Africa had 
experienced several devastating outbreaks of diseases in the pig population, including classical swine 
fever and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndro me (PRSS), which had adversely affected South 
African pig production and cost close to a million dolla rs to eradicate.  FMD was not the only disease  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 19 
 
 
  of concern when importing pork meat.  Although South Africa generally applied the concept of safe 
commodities as determined by the OIE, the OIE guidelines did not address all of the diseases of 
concern.  South Africa continued to seek advice from the OIE on how to proceed regarding certain 
imports, considering the health status of its pig population.  In particular, the OIE did not have 
guidelines for the importation of meat that di fferentiated between pa thogenic and apathogenic 
diseases.  South Africa ultimately aimed to develop a health certificate for the importation of pork 
which would ensure protection of its swine population. 
(xiv) US failure to recognize South Patagonia as a disease-free region and the reopening of the 
market for fresh beef from the rest of the country - Concerns of Argentina (No. 318) 
96. Argentina recalled that the United States had indicated at the previous meeting that the 
information provided by Argentina on ruminant a nd ruminant products from the region of Patagonia 
was useful to prepare a report to Congress as require d by US Law, in particular the Agriculture and 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration A ppropriations Act of 2009, Section 737.  The 
United States had also indicated that the Animal  and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had 
completed the risk analysis for the rest of Argen tina and had drafted proposed regulations to allow for 
the importation of meat products.  However, in spite  of this, trade had not resumed and imports from 
Argentina continued to be restricted without any scientific basis.  Argen tina requested the United 
States to complete its risk analysis and al low access to the US market for meat products. 
97. The United States stated that it was working closely with the Argentine authorities and 
APHIS had made significant progress in recognizing the FMD free status of South Patagonia.  The 
information provided by Argentina had been used to  complete and update the risk analysis and to 
prepare the report to Congress in accordance with the Appropriations Act.  APHIS had completed the 
assessment and was drafting a proposal to allow th e importation of beef under certain conditions.  
When the assessment and rules were completed in the near future, the United States would be able to 
provide market access for Argentine beef. 
(xv) Import restrictions due to BSE - Concerns of the European Union (No. 193) 
98. The European Union recalled that it had repeat edly raised concerns that several Members 
continued to impose bans or rest rictive conditions on products from EU member States allegedly 
because of BSE, but without respecting the interna tional standards as required by the SPS Agreement.  
The OIE standard on BSE was very well develope d and provided details regarding the disease and 
conditions for the safe trade of bovine products.  This meant that there was no n eed for additional risk 
assessments or for any trade restrictions at a ll on the well-defined safe products, such as deboned 
meat, regardless of the BSE risk status of the count ry.  Despite having raised this same concern for a 
long time, no one had ever provided a scientific risk  assessment that would justify any deviation from 
the international standard.  In this regard, the Euro pean Union urged, in particular, China, Japan and 
South Korea to bring their requirements into lin e with the international standard and the SPS 
Agreement.  The European Union welcomed recent de velopments in Australia and urged Australia to 
finalize this process quickly.  The United Stat es was also moving towards the adoption of 
comprehensive BSE rules and the European Union e xpected to see this process rapidly lead to US 
requirements fully in line with the OIE standard and a tangible outcome for trade.  The European 
Union urged all Members to fully align their BSE -related requirements with the OIE standards and 
thus establish fair, non-discriminatory, transpar ent and scientifically justified requirements. 
99. Japan and Korea both expressed their understanding  of the EU concern and indicated that 
they would continue discussions on this issue in b ilateral meetings.  China indicated that it sought 
further information from the European Union in or der to finish its risk analysis.  There was a 
successful dialogue between both Members, and Ch ina called on the European Union to provide 
further information and maintain its close re lationship with the Chinese scientific panel. G/SPS/R/64 
Page 20  
 
  (c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received 
100. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(d) Information on Resolution of Issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.11 
101. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
V. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS 
102. The Secretariat reported that documents G/SPS/GEN/1108, G/SPS/GEN/1109, and 
G/SPS/GEN/1111 summarized the notifications receiv ed since the last Co mmittee meeting for the 
months of June, July, and August 2011, respectively. 
103. The Secretariat noted as the paper versions of the lists of National Notification Authorities 
and National Enquiry Points could not be kept up to date, these w ould no longer be circulated as 
documents.  However, the electronic versions of the lists were constantly  updated and available 
through the SPS Information Management System (IMS) ( http://spsims.wto.org ) .  The Secretariat 
asked Members to ensure the ac curacy of the list of Enquiry Points and National Notification 
Authorities, to ensure that these would receive important documents and invitations to training 
activities. 
104. The Secretariat reminded Members of the new system for submission of SPS notifications 
online.  Notification Authorities were invited to request a password to access the system and submit 
notifications directly on line.  The system work ed very quickly and Members who often submitted 
many notifications were particularly encouraged to  use it.  About 25 Members had already requested a 
password and 11 Members had actually begun to submit their notifications electronically. 
105. The Secretariat also introduced th e transparency overview document 
(G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4), which was based largely on the SPS IMS.  The revised transparency 
procedures adopted in 2008 included revised notif ication formats which aimed to facilitate the 
provision of more specific information regarding new or modified SPS measures, for instance, new 
fields on the conformity of the notified measure with  international standards or the proposed date of 
publication of a measure.  As of 30 September 2011, only 13 Members had not yet identified their 
Notification Authority, and 67 per cent of Member s had submitted at least one notification to the 
WTO.  Since 1 January 1995, 13,349 notificati ons were submitted to the WTO and there was an 
annual upward trend with 1,436 no tifications in 2010.  During the period from 1 December 2008 to 
30 September 2011, 41 per cent of regular notifi cations indicated the existence of a relevant 
international standard and 27 per cent of these indicat ed that the proposed measure conformed to that 
standard.  For the same period, 84 per cent of emergency notifications identified a relevant 
international standard and 59 per cent of these indi cated conformity with that standard.  Of the 
notifications issued from 1 July 2010 through 30  September 2011, 36 per cent did not provide a 
comment period.  The average length of comment periods provided was 54 days. 
106. Chile noted that, in contrast to TBT notifica tions, few translations of draft SPS regulations 
had been notified, including a recent translation by Ch ile of a measure notified by China.  It was also 
notable that some Members notified more emergenc y measures than regular measures.  For the 60 per 
cent of regular notifications that did not indicate a relevant international standard, it was not clear 
whether a standard did not exist or whether the Memb er had failed to accurately complete this part of 
the notification.  Nepal noted the advantage of the NSS and requested that a training session on the 
SPS NSS be provided for all WTO Members.  Ecuador  appealed to Members to provide information 
on HS codes of the products covered in notifications , as this information was important for countries 
that were setting up electronic systems.  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 21 
 
 
  VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
107. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
108. The Secretariat noted that a report would be submitted to the Committee on Trade and 
Development describing the SPS Committee's considera tion of this issue during the past two years, 
including Cuba's intervention regarding the transfer of technology.   
VII. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 
(a) Information from Members on their Experiences 
109. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(b) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
110. Codex provided information regarding the deve lopment of guidelines for the judgement of 
equivalence of food control systems by the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and 
Certification Systems (CCFICS).  It was proposed th at the principle of recognition that other systems 
could be capable of meeting the same food safety objectives be included in the general guidelines for 
food control systems.  This could be applied at th e national and international levels.  The draft would 
be submitted to the Codex Commission in 2012.   Codex guidelines already existed for the 
development of equivalence agr eements regarding import and e xport certification and inspection 
systems and for the judgment of equivalence of sanitary measures. 
VIII.  PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 
(a) Information from Members on their Pest or Disease Status 
(i) European Union - Foot and Mouth Disease in Bulgaria 
111. The European Union stated that a total of 11 outbreaks had been reporte d in Bulgaria between 
5 January and 7 April 2011.  Stamping out meas ures had been imposed rather than emergency 
vaccination.  High risk and low risk areas had be en defined in the country and the movement of 
animal and products between those areas and the rest of the country had been regulated until 30 September, which was six months after the last outbreak.  This was complemented by a control and surveillance plan for wildlife in southeast Bulg aria, which would implemented at least until mid-
April 2012.  A plan, co-funded by the European Union, included the reinforced control on the 
movement of domestic animals and surveillance of liv estock and wildlife to ensure that the area along 
the border with Turkey was free of disease.  Bulg aria was preparing a final report on the outbreak 
which could serve as the basis for the application to the OIE of re-instatement of its previous disease-
free status.  The European Union continued to fo llow this matter closely to guarantee the highest 
possible health protection inside and outside the European Union. 
(ii) South Africa - Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Status 
112. South Africa reported on an outbreak of FMD that had occurred in February 2011 in the 
northern part of Kwazulu Natal Province, bordering Mozambique and Swaziland.  Measures 
implemented to eradicate and prevent the disease from spreading to neighbouring countries included 
the vaccination of 93,000 cattle twice;  tracing and d estroying animals that left the region before the 
investigation began;  imposing a ban on sales;  notifying the OIE on 25 February 2011 and informing 
trading partners.  The outbreak had been controlle d and no new cases had been found.  South Africa 
was now applying for OIE official recognition of the zone as FMD-free without vaccination, and G/SPS/R/64 
Page 22  
 
  trading partners were requested to apply the saf e commodities approach in accordance with the OIE 
guidelines for importation of products from South Africa.   
(iii) South Africa - Avian Influenza Situation 
113. South Africa indicated that an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza in ostriches was 
detected in March 2011, and the pathogenicity of th e virus (H5N2) was confirmed on 16 March 2011.  
The outbreak was accordingly reported to OIE and trading partners.  Temporary measures had been 
introduced immediately to control exports of a ll poultry and products thereof.  The outbreak was 
limited to the Western Cape Province and the area w as subsequently declared an AI control area.  
Surveillance had shown that the ot her eight provinces of South Afri ca were negative for the disease.  
South Africa was in the process of regionalizing the in fected area to conform with the OIE guidelines.  
The outbreak was limited to ostriches, therefore exportation of other poultry could continue from bio-
secured compartments.   
(iv) Jamaica - Citrus Greening Disease 
114. Jamaica reported that in September 2009 its Plant Health Committee had received 
confirmation of the presence of Liberibacter asiaticus  that causes citrus greening Huanglongbing 
(HLB), a disease which affects citrus trees and is  also known as Yellow Dragon disease.  A survey 
showed that the HLB and its vector, the citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri , were present throughout the 
island.  Starting in November 2010, the FAO had provided technical assistance to facilitate the production of clean nursery stock;  public awaren ess programmes;  technical consultancies;   
production of pathogen free material;  and improved cap acity for the diagnostic testing for HLB.  To 
restrict the spread of HLB, the Plant Quarantine Branch had issued an order making HLB a notifiable 
plant pest.  A Citrus Nursery Order was also being prepared.  An island-wide survey was underway to 
determine the incidence of the disease in commerc ial groves.  The Ministry of Agriculture and 
Fisheries had initiated a biological control pr ogramme in commercial and residential plots 
(G/SPS/GEN/1118). 
(v) Mexico - Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Status 
115. Mexico indicated that following two outbreak s of Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) in 
July and September 2011 in the states of Tabasco a nd Veracruz, the National Health, Food Safety and 
Food Quality Service (SENASICA) conducted an ep idemiological analysis.  The investigations 
showed no epidemiological link between these cases and no more cases were identified.  Mexico has 
been free of epizootic VEE strains since 1972 and ma intains surveillance of the populations at risk.  
The enzootic virus in the recent outbreaks was of a very low pathogenicity, and had no demonstrated 
ability to spread within the horse population.  Me xico's vector control programme ensured early 
detection of any risks to production or to public health, and this was strengthened during the rainy 
season to mitigate any risk of VEE. Other Member s should continue to recognize Mexico as free of 
epizootic VEE, or acknowledge closure of the r ecent VEE cases as notified to the OIE on 29 August 
and 13 September 2011, or accept the regionalization of the outbreaks and recognize the State of 
Jalisco as free of this disease (G/SPS/GEN/1124). 
(b) Information from Members on their Experiences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-free 
Areas 
116. No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 23 
 
 
  (c) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
117. The IPPC recalled that its members were oblig ed to submit pest reports in accordance with 
the IPPC standards, particularly ISPM 17, but reporting was often insufficient.  Some Members 
provided information regarding pests at the SPS Committee meetings or through SPS notifications, 
but these were not sufficient to meet the obligatio ns under the IPPC.  He encouraged Members to 
complete the forms in the IPPC database, throu gh which Members could exchange information on the 
establishment and recognition of pest-free areas. 
IX. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
(i) WTO SPS Activities 
118. The Secretariat reported that since the last Co mmittee meeting, seminars had been held in 
Chinese Taipei, Nicaragua, Panama and Senegal, an d a regional SPS workshop for the Caribbean was 
organized in collaboration with the Inter-A merican Development Ba nk in Barbados on 26-
29 July 2012.  More general training on the SPS Agre ement had been provided to participants in the 
Introductory Course for LDCs (Geneva), the Advan ced Trade Policy Course in Spanish (Geneva), and 
the Regional Trade Policy Course for the Asia-Pacific Region (India).   
119. Upcoming SPS training activities by the WTO Secretariat included three regional SPS 
workshops:  for French-speaking African countri es in Mali (15-18 November); English-speaking 
African countries in Kenya (22-25 November),  and for Arab and Middle East countries in Qatar (27-
30 November).  A national SPS workshop was be ing held in Namibia during the SPS Committee 
meeting, and other national work shops were scheduled for Samoa (1-3 November), Uganda (15-
17 November), Gabon and Morocco.  A national SPS/TBT workshop had been requested by the 
Maldives.   
120. The Secretariat highlighted the Advanced SPS Course, which was held 10-28 October, for 24 
participants selected from LDCs and developing c ountries.  This training activity provided a unique 
opportunity for transmitting knowledge and identifyi ng actions for implementing the SPS Agreement 
at national level.  The Secretariat appreciated the participation in the training course of delegates, 
Codex, IPPC and OIE, the Advisory Centre on WTO Law, and external consultants as coaches. 
121. The Secretariat noted that the e-leaning course on SPS was available all year long in the three 
WTO official languages, and further informati on on SPS-related technical assistance provided by 
WTO could be obtained from document G/SPS/GEN/ 997/Rev.1 and the WTO website.  Information 
on activities planned in 2012 woul d be available in G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.2 early in 2012.   
122. Chinese Taipei expressed appreciation for the SPS workshop held in September, noting that 
the 58 participants had found the training event to be very useful.  Belize and Togo expressed 
appreciation for the opportunity to participate in  the Advanced Training Course on SPS, noting that 
the course helped improve the implementation of the SPS Agreement and coordination at the national 
and regional levels.  Togo requested the Secretar iat to organize an advanced training course for 
French-speaking countries. 
123. The Secretariat indicated that funding for most  WTO training events ca me from the Global 
Trust Fund, and that Members' contributions to the Global Trust Fund had significantly dropped in 
2011 and commitments for 2012 were ev en lower.  If delegates belie ved that SPS-related training was 
important, they should make this known to their authorities responsible for budget matters, as without 
sufficient funds the Secretariat could not offer su ch training.  The WTO's SPS-related training was G/SPS/R/64 
Page 24  
 
  demand driven, and the decision to deliver the ad vanced SPS course in English instead of French 
reflected this.  In order to ensure that appropriate  officials were aware of the WTO training events, it 
was imperative that Members keep their NNA and ENQ contact information up to date. 
(ii) Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) 
124. The STDF Secretariat reported that a new medi um term strategy (2012-2016) for the STDF 
was being developed, along with  a plan of activities for 2012 and simplified operational rules, for 
endorsement by the STDF Policy Committee meet ing on 9 December (G/SPS/GEN/1114).  More 
information on the new strategy of the STDF, its mission statement and plan for 2012 would be 
provided at the SPS Committee meeting in March.   
125. The STDF Secretariat recalled the workshop he ld in October 2009 on the use of economic 
analysis to inform SPS decision making.  Work had been undertaken this year in Africa on the use of 
a Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool, w ith the objective of facilitating dialogue among 
SPS stakeholders about prioritizing SPS capacity buildi ng.  The tool helped ensure a transparent and 
more inclusive needs assessment, identifying decision  criteria, including costs and benefits.  The first 
applications had taken place in Mozambique (April) and Zambia (July), followed by a regional 
workshop in South Africa (August).  Participan ts had been trained on how to use the MCDA 
methodology.  One advantage of the tool was to indicate the reliability of the data used, and the 
method could be re-applied when more  data was available.  The STDF  planned to provide training on 
the MCDA in Asia and/or the Americas during 2012 , and sought expressions of  interest from those 
regions.   
126. The STDF was planning a seminar in international tr ade and invasive alien species, to be held 
on the margin of the SPS Committee in July 2012.  The STDF would fund the participation of some 
experts from developing countries.  The seminar w ould be open to the public.  The STDF publication 
on SPS-related capacity evaluation tools had recently been revised.  A joint STDF-World Bank publication on climate change and trade, based on the seminar on this topic in 2009, addressed SPS 
issues.  STDF was finalizing the study on nationa l SPS coordination mechanisms in Africa, whose 
recommendations had been presented a few days ear lier at the workshop.  A publication on Public-
Private Partnerships in SPS capacity building would soon be finalized in collaboration with the Inter-
American Development Bank.  The STDF film, "Trading Safely", was now available also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian.  The STDF newsletter was issued three times per year and Members were invited to complete the survey on this newsletter.   The next deadline for submission of applications 
for STDF funding was 2 January 2012.  The eligib ility criteria for STDF funding were available on 
the STDF website, along with guidelines for applicants.  Under the current procedure, an application 
was reviewed:  (i) by the secretariat;  (ii) by  STDF working group members including partners and 
donors;  and (iii) by the STDF Working Group for final decisions. 
127. Nepal thanked the STDF for approving a project  to strengthen ginger production and hoped 
that the EIF would support the ha rdware needed for the project. 
(b) Information from Members 
128. The United States stated that it would conti nue to support and participate in SPS-related 
technical assistance to developing countries.  US  capacity building efforts had helped numerous 
developing and WTO-acceding countries enhance their SPS regulatory regimes.  In 2010, and leading 
out to 2012, the US Government  had provided or committed funding for SPS trade capacity building 
(TCB) efforts in excess of US$10.4 million.  The SPS TCB effort of the United States was part of a 
US$300 million plus capacity building undertaking including the Food for Progress programme and 
other assistance programmes.  US Government assistance took many forms, including training seminars, staff assistance, and data sharing (G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.9/Rev.1).  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 25 
 
 
  129. Paraguay appreciated the US seminar on th e new Food Safety Modernization Act and 
suggested further regional workshops to explain th e procedures and implementation of this law.  
Senegal was grateful for the US support that pe rmitted the National Codex Committee to participate 
in Codex meetings the last two years, and hoped th is support would be extended to participation in the 
SPS Committee. 
130. Argentina thanked the WTO Secretariat for supporting a new graduate programme in 
international agricultural trade and negotiations  organized by Buenos Aires University in 
collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fish ery and Livestock Department.  The first seminar 
was held from 30 May to 3 June 2011 with support fro m the World Trade Institute of the University 
of Bern, IICA and the Inter-American Development Bank.   
(c) Information from Observers 
131. Codex reported on regional workshops to improve  participation in Codex, the use of Codex 
standards, the organization of National Codex Contact Points, issues of food safety and the 
application of risk analysis.  In September, a workshop had been held in Albania for South-Eastern European countries, and a similar activity had been  held in cooperation with the African Community 
in Kenya.  Another workshop was planned for the Near East in December 2011. These activities were 
partly funded from the Codex Trust Fund and organized by WHO and FAO Regional Offices.   
132. IPPC observed that standards could not ach ieve their objective unless countries had the 
capacity to ensure their implementation.  In the p ast few years, the IPPC Secretariat had developed a 
strategic plan on capacity development and a budge t would be submitted to the Commission meeting 
in March 2012.  An oversight body for capacity development was proposed to look at issues with 
respect to the implementation of ISPMs.   IPPC  was aware that much information was already 
available and requested Members to share any opera tional or procedural manuals, training kits or 
videos or other tools that could help support th e implementation of ISPMs.  STDF had funded the 
development of an e-learning programme on pest risk analysis that was available from the IPPC 
website.  IPPC received frequent requests for the a pplication of the PCE national self-evaluation tool.  
With the support from donors, IPPC had organized seven regional workshops on drafting standards 
and planned to deliver seven others in 2012. 
133. As part of the global initiative to strengthen ve terinary and aquatic animal health services of 
its members, OIE continued to publish standard s and recommendations on good governance.  Many 
developing countries needed to modernize their veterina ry legislation, a critical part of infrastructure, 
and the Terrestrial Code Commission would propo se a new standard on veterinary legislation for 
adoption in 2012.  Later in 2011 the OIE would publish recommendations regarding core 
competencies of graduate veterinarians.  Follo wing the OIE Global Conference on "Aquatic Animal 
Health Programmes – their benefits for global food security" in Panama on 28-30 June 2011, the OIE 
had received several requests for evaluations of aquatic animal health services.  To date the OIE had received requests for 116 Performance of Veterinary  Services (PVS) evaluations, had conducted 104 
missions, 78 reports from the missions were available for restricted use by donors and partners.  The 
focus was now on gap analysis, for which th e OIE had received 68 requests and conducted 
47 missions.  The OIE has also undertaken veterinary legislation missions as part of the PVS pathway, 
and 24 missions had been conducted with 19 outstanding requests. 
134. IICA reported that its support for particip ation in Codex meetings would end in 
December 2011.  Financial support had been given to  16 participants for nine Codex committees, and 
22 countries had benefited.  Th e Codex Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean 
would organize a meeting on inspection certificates with online participation from 12 Latin America 
and three Caribbean countries.  IICA had also s upported a regional workshop on proposed ISPMs in 
September, in collaboration with the IPPC Secretar iat, the Southern Cone Plant Health Committee, G/SPS/R/64 
Page 26  
 
  and OIRSA, with 25 participants from 16 countri es and two Regional Plant Protection Organizations 
(G/SPS/GEN/1121). 
135. OIRSA reported on a program for HLB, also know n as citrus greening, in coordination with 
technical experts from Chinese Taipei, to access the situation of the disease in the region and to 
prepare regional controls.  Panama had signed an  agreement with FAO for technical services to 
support Central America countries and the Dominican Republic in controlling HLB.  OIRSA, with 
SAGARPA, had organized a regional training works hop in Panama to strengthen monitoring of the 
tomato leaf moth ( tuta absolute meyrick), and was consulting with the North American Plant 
Protection Organization (NAPPO) on strategies to prev ent this pest.  A study on eradicating classical 
swine fever was underway in Honduras, the last co untry in the region in which classical swine fever 
appears.  OIRSA had collaborated to provide technical assistance to companies in Panama on pre-
inspection of Good Manufacturing Practices and San itation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP) 
and HACCP for farmed shrimp to meet US FDA requirements, and on hygiene and safety of tilapia and shrimp in accordance with EU requirements.  The STDF-funded project to strengthen the national 
SPS committee in Honduras, and two reports a nd a national workshop on ISPM 15, had been 
completed.  OIRSA had also supported participation of Central American officials to the 34th session 
of the Codex Commission, and participation of national plant protection organizations (NPPO) in 
regional workshops in Costa Rica to review draft ISPMs (G/SPS/GEN/1119).    
136. ISO indicated that it had organized a four-day  workshop in Indonesia in collaboration with 
Codex, FAO, OIE and the Global Food Safety Initiati ve in September 2011.  The aim of the workshop 
was to raise awareness on fish safety.  The wo rkshop was also supported by Indonesia and the 
Swedish International Development Co-operation Agen cy, and involved three participants from each 
of 17 East and South East Asian countries.  A si milar activity was planned for African countries in 
Kenya in April 2012. 
X. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT 
(a) Workshop on SPS Coordination at National and Regional Levels 
137. The Chairman reported that the WTO Secretariat held a workshop on SPS Coordination at the 
National and Regional Levels on Monday, 17 Oct ober 2011.  The programme was available in 
G/SPS/GEN/1110.  The objective of the workshop was to bring together officials responsible for 
participation in and implementation of the SPS Agre ement, Codex, IPPC and OIE for an in-depth 
discussion, at a technical level, on best practices in coordination at nationa l and regional levels.  
138. The first part of the workshop had included pr esentations by the Three Sisters that addressed  
(i) benefits and weaknesses of their standard setti ng procedures, (ii) concerns raised regarding these 
procedures and (iii) changes under consideration.  The Secretariat had presented its background 
document (G/SPS/GEN/1115) that described and compar ed the procedures used by the Three Sisters 
to develop standards, as some WTO Members had s uggested that effective national coordination may 
be hampered by assumptions that the standard-setti ng procedures of the Three Sisters were the same. 
139. In a session on national coordination, the STDF Secretariat had presented the preliminary 
recommendations of the Study on National SPS Coordination Mechanisms in Africa.  These recommendations were to:  (1) raise SPS awareness,  (2) clarify organizational matters, (3) build on 
existing mechanisms (4) follow "good mentoring practices", (5) establish clear and effective 
communication strategies, and (6) promote sustainability.   G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 27 
 
 
  140. The Philippines and Belize had shared their experi ences of coordination at the national level.  
Belize had provided information on its creation of  a National SPS Committee, while the Philippines 
had shared experiences related to incr easing awareness of the SPS Agreement.  
141. Concerning regional coordination, a scoping st udy undertaken by STDF regarding African 
regional SPS protocols had been presented.  This study flagged concerns about the ability of the 
Regional Economic Communities to assist Members implement the SPS Agreement.  The study 
described inadequate and highl y fragmented SPS frameworks, slow decision-making and a very 
limited political awareness.  The African Union and COMESA had agreed with some of the study's 
conclusions, and noted that changes were underway. 
142. MERCOSUR and COMESA had provi ded their experiences of coordination at the regional 
levels.  COMESA had outlined the role of its  SPS Sub Committee and how they proposed to 
implement a "Simplified Trading Regime".  ME RCOSUR had provided specific information on its 
regulatory framework concerning SPS matters, incl uding harmonization and coordination within the 
region.   
143. The problems identified by Members that aro se from poor coordination at the national level 
were very similar, and included: 
(a) Duplication of work, resulting in the waste of scarce resources; 
(b) Conflicting / non-coherent positi ons, which led to a loss of credibility of competent 
authorities;   
(c) Missing opportunities, including for traini ng and capacity-building assistance;  and 
(d) Loss of market access.  
144. Among the identified causes of poor coordination was the existence of many players involved 
in SPS matters, as well as limited human resources.  Th e lack of awareness of the importance of SPS 
at the political level and by other stake holders was also frequently mentioned. 
145. The workshop had been a very good opportunity  for Members to share their experiences on 
coordination at national and regi onal levels.  Members had take n the opportunity to exchange 
information on the challenges faced, but also the good practices identif ied, in the implementation of a 
good coordination mechanism. 
146. The workshop had resulted in a number of specific recommendations, where the 
responsibility of implementation remained with the Members themselves.  The recommendations 
included: 
(a) The need to identify someone as specifically  responsible for national coordination; 
(b) The establishment of an effective mechanism to share information; 
(c) The establishment of an SPS policy at the national level; 
(d) The creation of an SPS agenda fo r work at the national level; 
(e) Continual sharing of experiences on coordination; 
(f) Ensuring that all stakeholders understood the importance of SPS issues; 
(g) Involvement of the private sector and acad emia in the coordination of SPS issues; 
(h) The building of institutions, guaranteeing continuity.  G/SPS/R/64 
Page 28  
 
  147. The workshop had also resulte d in two specific recommendations for consideration by the 
Committee: 
(a) Development of guidelines on natio nal coordination;  and/or 
(b) Development of a manual of good practices on coordination. 
148. The Chairman concluded his oral report by indi cating that a detailed report of the Workshop 
would be circulated by the Secretariat after the Committee meeting (G/SPS/R/65). 
149. In commenting on the Chairman's report, Japan th anked the Secretariat for organizing a useful 
workshop which provided a good opportunity fo r Members to share their experiences in SPS 
coordination.  The workshop also provided a good op portunity for each Member to further understand 
the standard-setting procedures of the Three Sisters, and which was necessary for the improvement of 
SPS coordination.   
150. Morocco was pleased with the opportunity for Members to share their views on such an 
important issue.  Effective national coordinatio n depended on each country, and perhaps required 
personal initiative to establish a national coordinating committee. 
151. The European Union welcomed the background document on how the Three Sisters operated, 
as well as the broad participation of Members in  the workshop.  Sharing of good practices was a 
positive step in determining how national and region al cooperation could be improved, especially in 
the face of reduced resources. 
(b) Issues Arising from the Second Review (G/SPS/W/259) 
(i) Use of Ad Hoc Consultations – Report on Informal Meeting 
152. The Chairman reported on an informal meeting on ad hoc consultations, held on 18 October.   
He had recalled that at the June meeting some Members had expressed support for G/SPS/W/259 as 
the basis for future discussions; however other Me mbers had indicated that the document did not 
reflect certain elements of their proposals.   
153. To advance the work, the Chairman had inv ited Members to submit comments in writing on 
G/SPS/W/259 by 29 July 2011, and requested the Secretariat to incorporate all comments received 
into a new revision of the document.  This revision,  G/SPS/W/259/Rev.1, was the basis of the work at 
the informal meeting on ad hoc consultations. 
154. Given the nature and number of brackets in document G/SPS/W/259/Rev.1, the Chairman had 
suggested at the informal meeting to proceed paragraph-by-paragraph w ith a goal of reaching 
consensus on as many points as possible.  Although  not easy, consensus had been reached on the 
majority of brackets contained in the preamble of  the draft.  Regarding general considerations, 
consensus had also been achieved in paragraphs 1 and 2.  However, Members had been unable to 
continue with the review of the rest of the document because of lack of time. 
155. In concluding the informal meeting, the Chai rman had asked the Secretariat to produce a new 
revision of the document that reflected the outcome of the informal meeting on ad hoc consultations, 
up to paragraph 5.  This revised ve rsion would be the basis of the work  for the next informal meeting, 
to be held on the margins of the March 2012 mee tings.  The Chairman hoped that further discussions 
at the next meeting would be favourable in reaching consensus on the remaining brackets. 
156. Brazil expressed its concern on the slow pace of progress, noting that the number of STCs 
raised in SPS meetings was substantial and would li kely increase in the future.  Brazil was interested  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 29 
 
 
  in being able to use agreed procedures for ad hoc co nsultations in order to advance some of the long-
standing problems they currently faced, and urged Me mbers to be flexible so that compromises could 
be reached and a mechanism agreed. 
(c) Issues Arising from the Third Review (G/SPS/GEN/1086) 
(i) Report on the Informal Meeting 
157. The Chairman reported on the informal meeti ng of 18 October, which discussed ways of 
advancing work on issues arising from the Third Review.  He had recalled that at the March 2010 
meeting, the Committee had adopted the report of the Third Review, contained in G/SPS/53.  The report identified several issues where the Co mmittee had agreed to further work.   
158. At the October 2010 informal meeting, Members had agreed to prioritize three issues for 
consideration of further work:  (i) cooperation between the SPS Committee and the Three Sisters;  
(ii) improving the procedure for monitoring the use of  international standards;  and (iii) control, 
inspection and approval procedur es (Article 8 and Annex C). 
159. On cooperation between the SPS Committee and the Three Sisters, two items were discussed.  
The first was the workshop on national and re gional coordination, which had been held on 
17 October.  The second was the joint Canada-Japan  proposal (G/SPS/W/258) for a formal decision 
by the SPS Committee to implement Recommendation 3 of the October 2009 workshop by encouraging the Three Sisters to undert ake joint work on cross-cutting issues. 
160. The Secretariat had given a brief report on th e coordination workshop, and highlighted two 
specific recommendations resulti ng from it, namely a possibility to develop guidelines for good 
national coordination and/or a manual of good practices.  Japan  and some other Members had 
expressed appreciation for the workshop, and noted that it had provided a good opportunity to share 
experiences in SPS coordination and to learn about th e Three Sisters' standard-setting procedures.  
161. Canada had noted that under the Third Revi ew, it was agreed that the Committee should 
follow up on the recommendations resulting from th e October 2009 workshop.  Canada had recalled 
that it and Japan had submitted a joint proposal to en courage the Three Sisters to undertake joint work 
on cross-cutting issues, in an attempt to action Recommendation 3 of that workshop for a formal 
decision (G/SPS/W/258) by the Committee. 
162. The IPPC had noted that there was increasing c ooperation between the Three Sisters and that 
it had taken due note of the proposed decision, but al so cautioned that the Three Sisters were distinct 
organizations with different govern ing bodies and procedures, and that therefore, cooperation in some 
fields could be more challenging than in others.   
163. Several Members had supported formal adoption of the draft decision proposed by Canada 
and Japan, and it was agreed that it would be consider ed for adoption at the formal meeting of the SPS 
Committee.  Argentina, Chile and Egypt had al so flagged that the Committee should consider 
specifying in the future the particular cross-cu tting areas in which it would wish to see deeper 
cooperation between the Three Sisters.  G/SPS/R/64 
Page 30  
 
  164. In relation to improving the procedure to m onitor the use of international standards, 
Argentina, Canada, Japan and New Zealand had pr ovided submissions.  Several Members had noted 
that the current procedure to monitor the process of international harmoniza tion did not capture all 
situations that involved international standards, a nd had emphasised the need to correctly reflect the 
use of international standards in annual monitoring.  New Zealand had suggested in this regard that 
when raising specific trade concerns, Members shoul d identify any relevant standard that may be 
applicable in the situation.  In  Japan's view, it would be constructive to collect, as a first step, 
information on why Members were  underutilizing the existing system .  Argentina and Chile had 
reiterated their call to review the current pro cedure to monitor the process of international 
harmonization, contained in G/SPS/11/Rev.1, in order to ensure monitoring is up-to-date and 
effective. 
165. The IPPC had presented an on-going project to sy stematically look at the implementation of 
IPPC standards, and had indicated that it could pe rhaps inform the Committee about this work at the 
March meeting.  Codex had explai ned how its regional committees monitored the national application 
of Codex standards.  Chile had suggested that it would be useful for Members and the Sister 
organizations to work together to find effective wa ys to monitor the use of international standards. 
166. The Chairman had concluded the discussion on th is point by inviting Members to submit, 
prior to the next informal meeting, any specifi c submissions regarding the underutilization of the 
current monitoring procedure or proposals for its revision. 
167. Under the third prioritized issue, control, in spection and approval procedures (Article 8 and 
Annex C), submissions from Canada, Japan and New Zealand had been discussed.  These Members 
had reiterated their position that before moving on to  consider the most effective way to implement 
Article 8 and Annex C, Members should share their experiences with control, inspection and approval 
procedures.  All three had thanked the European  Union for having presented its approach to SPS 
audits at the June informal meeting. 
168. To advance work under this point, the Chai rman had encouraged Members to continue 
sharing their experiences with contro l, inspection, approval procedures. 
 169. The Chairman had concluded the informal me eting by inviting Members to submit, in 
advance of the next informal meeting, other specific inputs on the identified priority issues and on how to advance the work of the Committee on issues resulting from the Third Review of the SPS Agreement. 
 
(ii) Proposal by Canada and Japan 
170. The Committee formally agreed to the proposal by Canada and Japan on joint work by the 
standards-setting bodies (G/SPS/58). 
XI. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
(a) New Issues 
171. No Member raised any issue under this agenda item. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised  
172. The IPPC noted that, thanks to generous suppor t from the European Union, it had put in place 
an Implementation Review and Support System (IRSS) , which would follow a three-year cycle.  The 
IRSS addresses the use and implementation of standa rds.  A questionnaire would be sent to Members  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 31 
 
 
  to collect information on the implementation of the IPPC and ISPMs.  In addition, the implementation 
of ISPM No. 6 was being assessed, and a preliminary report would be available in March 2012.  The 
IPPC was also developing a Help Desk facility  whereby Members could contact the IPPC for 
assistance with the use and implementation of inte rnational standards, and which would contain, inter 
alia, databases, rosters of experts, lists of donors, and criteria for funding. 
173. Chile thanked the IPPC for their assistance in helping Members to make the best use of 
international standards, and urged Members to corre ctly complete SPS notification forms rather than 
indicate that no relevant standards existed. 
XII. CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS (G/SPS/55, 
G/SPS/W/256, G/SPS/W/261) 
(a) Report on the Informal Meeting 
174. The Chairman provided an oral report of the informal meeting on the implementation of the 
agreed actions with respect to SPS-related private standards and other identified actions, held on 
18 October 2011.  The Chairman had recalled that at the June meeting of the Committee, he had 
invited Members to (i) submit specific proposals on how to implement the five agreed actions;  
(ii) discuss among themselves proposed changes to the title of Action 6 before the October meeting to 
try and resolve differences;   and (iii) submit suggestions of how to move forward on Actions 7 to 12.  
Comments had been received from nine Members by the 29 July deadline:  Australia, Brazil, Canada, 
the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, Peru and the United States.  
175. The Chairman had invited the Committee to first discuss the five agreed actions and asked for 
concrete suggestions on how to implement these actions. 
176. Regarding Action 1, some Members had str essed the need to first agree on a working 
definition of SPS-related private standards, as a basi s for the work on the remaining agreed actions. 
Brazil and several other Members had suggested the establishment of a deadline for Members to submit proposals on a working definition of SPS-relate d private standards.  Some Members had also 
noted that the Three Sisters should be involved in th e work on a definition.  It had been pointed out 
that the text of Action 1 already contained a pr oposed working definition of an SPS-related private 
standard which should serve as the basis to a dvance the work.  However, other Members had 
suggested that Annex A of the SPS Agreement re lated to government measures and not private 
standards.   
177. Regarding Actions 2 to 5, some Members had argued that a lack of consensus on Action 1 
should not hinder progress on the implementation of Actions 2 to 5, as there was no agreement to 
sequence the five agreed actions.  Other Members ha d stressed that a definition of SPS-related private 
standards was necessary to proceed with the impl ementation of the other actions, for instance to 
determine which issues should be reported to the SPS Committee by the Three Sisters.  Some had 
noted that Actions 2 through 5, however, could be  taken almost simultaneously once a definition was 
agreed. 
178. Regarding Actions 2, 3 and 5, Brazil had suggest ed that (i) the Committee be informed of the 
actions taken by the Secretariat in conjunction with  Codex, IPPC and OIE, as well as by other WTO 
fora and (ii) Codex, IPPC and OIE also include in their reports to the Committee actions taken in 
relation to SPS-related private standards. 
179. On Action 2, Indonesia had noted that organiza tions or entities planning to impose private 
standards should communicate this in advance to the SPS Committee and consult with the Three 
Sisters.  On Action 3, Canada had suggested that th e Secretariat could circulate reports of any relevant G/SPS/R/64 
Page 32  
 
  discussions in other WTO fora concerning private standards.  On Action 4, Indonesia had proposed 
that a mechanism be put in place to allow government s to inform stakeholders in developing countries 
of SPS-related private standards. 
180. Regarding Action 5, some Members had reite rated the importance of a definition of SPS-
related private standards to avoid confusion in the implementation of the agreed actions.  Other 
Members reiterated that sequencing was not necessary with regards to the agreed actions, or any other 
relevant actions to address SPS-related private standards. 
181. The IPPC had flagged that private standards had not yet been identified in the plant health 
area, and that its governing body would need to agree to add the issue to its work programme.  A working definition of SPS-related private standards c ould inform the report that the IPPC provided to 
the SPS Committee.  Codex had also highlighted the importance of a working definition of SPS-
related private standards and reported that it was un dertaking discussions on private standards in the 
framework of Codex regional bodies.  Codex welcomed continued cooperation with the SPS 
Committee, IPPC and the OIE on this issue. 
182. Chile had suggested that it could be useful to encourage the private standard-setting bodies to 
participate as observers in the work of the Codex and OIE, so as to improve  mutual understanding and 
identify ways to collaborate in the future and also  benefit from a scientific and transparency stand 
point.  Finally the Committee and the Three Sisters would benefit with regards to the implementation 
of international standards. 
183. Due to lack of time, Actions 6 to 12 had only been briefly discussed.  Argentina, Brazil and 
Uruguay had requested that these actions be on the ag enda of the next informal meeting on private 
standards.  Other Members had noted that ther e had been no consensus on proposed possible 
Actions 6 to 12 and insisted on the need to firs t concentrate on making progress on agreed Actions 1 
to 5. 
184. With a view to the Committee quickly agreeing on a working definition, the Chairman had 
invited Members to submit specific proposals on a wo rking definition of SPS-related private standards 
by 13 January 2012.  It had been noted that proposals received by the deadline would only be 
circulated electronically by the Secretariat.   
185. Members were also invited to (i) comment on the proposed definitions received;  and 
(ii) submit proposals on the implementation of  Actions 2 to 5, by 10 February 2012. 
186. In commenting on the Chairman's oral report of the informal meeting, Belize noted that it was 
disappointed that at the informal meeting some Members had sought to impose a chronological order 
for the implementation of the recommended actions, as this had never been agreed.  Chile welcomed 
Members' indication of interest in progressing on th e definition of SPS-related private standards, and 
encouraged simultaneous progress on the other reco mmendations so these could be implemented as 
soon as a working definition had been agreed.  Chile  also suggested that Members should encourage 
the Three Sisters to work together  with the Committee to move forwar d on this issue because such an 
approach would enhance scientific content and transp arency, and benefit the Three Sisters in terms of 
better application of these standards. 
XIII.  REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS 
187. The Chairman recalled that at the last meeti ng it had been suggested that the criteria for 
observer status should be reviewed, and it had also  been suggested to categorize the organizations 
now requesting observer status in the SPS Committee.   The Secretariat had prepared a background 
document to assist the Committee in this regard.  The Secretariat noted that G/SPS/GEN/1112  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 33 
 
 
  described the working procedures of the SPS Comm ittee regarding the granting of observer status, 
and categorized the organizations which currently  had observer status in the Committee.  The 
Secretariat indicated that it would remind observe r organizations that according to the existing 
criteria, an observer organization would lose its stat us if it did not participate in a meeting of the 
Committee within a year's period of time.   
(a) Ad hoc Observers 
188. The Committee agreed to invite all of the ad  hoc observers to participate in the next 
Committee meetings, both formal and informal. 
(b) New Requests and Outstanding Requests 
189. The Chairman noted that there were two ne w requests for observer status; one from the 
International Cocoa Organization (ICO) and anothe r one from the African Union (AU), and that the 
background documents prepared by the Secretariat were G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.13 and G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.14, respectively.  In consider ing the requests from the AU, and the outstanding 
requests from the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) , and the Intergovernmental Authority for 
Development (IGAD), the Committee should recall that it had already granted observer status to other 
African regional secretariats, including ECOWAS, CEN-SAD and WAEMU. 
190. The United States suggested that there was a need  to review the current procedures regarding 
the role of observers, and that a distinction should be made between the role of the Three Sisters and 
other observer organizations.  Members should submit suggestions on guidelines for observer 
organizations for discussion in March 2012, and cons ider postponing approval of other applications 
until guidelines were agreed.  Cana da, the European Union and New Zealand agreed on the need to 
develop guidelines regarding the role of observer organizations.  Ecuador, the European Union and 
Pakistan also agreed that the status of the Thr ee Sisters was markedly different from that of other 
observers.  Canada further noted that should guide lines be developed, there be a clear scope and 
specific limited timeframe to prevent delayi ng decisions on observer status requests. 
191. Pakistan stressed that scientific organizations  should also be considered distinctly, and 
supported the application of CABI because of its  technical expertise and assistance in the 
implementation of national SPS Committees. 
192. Burkina Faso highlighted the job done by the A frican Union in the last few years to support 
African countries in the context of the SPS Agreem ent, and as such supported the application of the 
AU.  This appeal was supported by Benin, Ce ntral African Republic, Congo, Gabon, Madagascar, 
Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Togo,  Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.  Many 
of these Members indicated that they agreed on the special status of the Three Sisters compared to 
other observers, and the interest in developing guid elines.  However, they noted that the African 
Union already had observer status in the Codex and th e OIE, and played an important role in terms of 
capacity building and improving health in poor African countries.  The European Union also 
supported granting observer status to the African Union. 
193. No consensus was reached on the new or out standing requests for observer status.  
XIV.  CHAIRMAN'S ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
194. The Chairman noted that he would make a brief, factual annual report, under his own 
responsibility, on the activities of the Committee for consideration by the Council for Trade in Goods. 
The report would describe the main work taken duri ng 2011, in particular the adoption of the five G/SPS/R/64 
Page 34  
 
  actions with respect to SPS-related private standa rds and the workshop on SPS coordination at the 
national and regional levels, and provide an overview of discussions under several agenda items. A 
draft of the annual report had been made available to delegates at the beginning of the meeting, and 
Members could provide suggestions regarding th e annual report until 25 Oc tober 2011.  The final 
report was circulated as G/L/969. 
XV. OTHER BUSINESS 
195. Mexico again expressed concerns on China's hygienic standard for distilled spirits and 
integrated alcoholic beverages (STC 278), in par ticular the maximum establis hed level for methanol 
in distilled beverages and the classifica tion of tequila.  Mexico had raised  this issue in several bilateral 
meetings, submitted relevant scientific informati on to assist Chinese officials understand the unique 
features of tequila, and had also submitted a bib liographic analysis on the presence of methanol in 
distilled alcoholic beverages and its  relation to consumer health.  The private sector had also sent 
comments to the Chinese authorities.  Mexico point ed out that certain alcoholic beverages with 
methanol levels higher than tequila, such as fruit ma rc spirits, were produced and sold internationally 
without any reported negative health effects, and th at tequila's maximum methanol content of three 
grams per litre was inherent to the product, no t related to poor quality or processing.  Mexico 
concluded that China's proposed maximum limit on me thanol could be at odds with existing scientific 
evidence and, as such, unjustified.  China indicated  that it would carefully review the information 
from Mexico. 
196. Norway provided an update on recent developments in China's measures on salmon, in 
particular the new testing and quarantine measur es on fresh salmon.  The measures introduced in 
December 2010 by the implementation of AQSIQ Or der Number 9 had led to a 70 per cent reduction 
in the volume of Norway's exports of fresh salm on to China.  Norway had requested bilateral 
consultations between the relevant technical experts, and urged China to agree to hold this meeting 
before the end of 2011.  China indicated that the sharing of written documents and data was as 
important as physical talks, but Norway had not yet provided the necessary information.  However, 
there had been smooth discussions on this issue in AQSIQ in Beijing. 
XVI.  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING 
197. The Chairman recalled that the next meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for 
28-29 March 2012.  Informal meetings on ad hoc consultations, private standards and issues arising 
from the Third Review would be scheduled imme diately prior to the next Committee meeting. 
198. The Committee agreed to the following tent ative agenda for its next meeting: 
 1. Adoption of the agenda 
 2. Information on relevant activities   (a) Information from Members 
  (b) Information from Observer organizations 
 3. Specific trade concerns 
  (a) New issues 
  (b) Issues previously raised   (c) Consideration of specific notifications received   (d) Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 4. Operation of transparency provisions  5. Implementation of special and differential treatment  G/SPS/R/64 
 Page 35 
 
 
   6. Equivalence – Article 4 
  (a) Information from Members on their experiences 
  (b) Information from rele vant Observer organizations 
 7. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6   (a) Information from Members on their pest or disease status 
 (b) Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or 
 disease-free areas 
  (c) Information from rele vant observer organizations 
 8. Technical assistance and cooperation   (a) Information from the Secretariat 
   (i) WTO SPS Activities 
   (ii) STDF 
  (b) Information from Members 
  (c) Information from Observers 
 9. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
  (a) Issues arising from the Second Review 
   (i) Use of ad hoc consultations – Report on informal meeting 
  (b) Issues arising from the Third Review 
   (i) Report on Workshop on na tional and regional coordination 
   (ii) Report on informal meeting 
 10. Monitoring of the use of international standards 
  (a) New issues 
  (b) Issues previously raised 
 11. Concerns with private and commercial standards   (a) Report on informal meeting  12. Observers – Request for observer status 
  (a) Ad hoc Observers 
  (b) New Requests   (c) Outstanding requests  
 13. Other business  14. Date and agenda of next meeting 
 
199. Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines: 
 Any comments on the draft Annual Report must be provided before:  Thursday, 
25 October ; 
 For proposed working definition on private standards:  Friday, 13 January;  
 For comments on those definitions and othe r comments regarding SPS-related private 
standards:  Friday, 10 February;   
 For the identification of new issues regardi ng the monitoring procedure or to request 
the inclusion of items on the agenda:  Thursday, 15 March;  
 For the distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 16 March.  
__________